« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Court Appears Split 5-4 on Voter ID
Pretty much as expected, with Judge Anthony Kennedy as the key swing vote. From the AP:
The Supreme Court appeared reluctant Wednesday to strike down the nation's strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before being allowed to cast a ballot...."You want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?" Justice Anthony Kennedy said near the end of an hour-long argument. Kennedy, often a key vote, appeared more willing than some to consider changes to the law....
Chief Justice John Roberts, an Indiana native, and Justice Antonin Scalia indicated strong support for the state law. Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, but most often votes with his conservative colleagues....
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg focused her questions on the difficulties for indigent voters who lack IDs. Why, she asked, can't the state allow those voters to sign the sworn statement on Election Day, which would eliminate the second trip to the county courthouse?
Told Indiana wants to avoid congestion at the polls, Ginsburg said the state wants to have it both ways because it argues relatively few people are affected by the law. "If there are so few of them, I don't understand why they should be put to the burden," Ginsburg said.
Here's a detailed rundown from SCOTUSblog.
Josh
Zachary
"Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, but most often votes with his conservative colleagues."
I guess the "As usual" is implied at the beginning of that sentence. Ah, the Supreme Court. What a gig.
January 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It all stems from that despicable 5-4 decision in December 2004, Bush v Gore. That incredibly convoluted, flawed ruling allowed those oil money scumbags to seize power and stack the court with even more scumbags.
That was the beginning of the end of the republic.
January 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
wouldn't it be fun if this aroused passion and MORE democrats voted?
January 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm convinced Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dont even listen the arguments. Their judgement is pre-formed, IOW. If a liberal group wants "x" judgement, they'll reflexively declare "y", no matter what.
No thought, no rationale, no precedent ever considered.
January 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
woops, 2000, not 2004
January 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
jolly: I think we can safely put Roberts in that bunch as well
January 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
jolly ranchero wrote on January 9, 2008 2:54 PM:
I'm convinced Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dont even listen the arguments. Their judgement is pre-formed ----
These asshats are from the Federalist Society. Of course they have a pre-determined agenda - to completely destroy the Constitution. They've done a pretty good job of it since 1982.
January 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Article: Told Indiana wants to avoid congestion at the polls, Ginsburg said the state wants to have it both ways because it argues relatively few people are affected by the law. "If there are so few of them, I don't understand why they should be put to the burden," Ginsburg said.
Pesky Ginsburg has the audacity to catch the thieves with their hands in her pockets.
January 9, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ruling would have gone the same way if the law required darkies to tapdance while showing their voter ID. Jim Crow is back, folks.
January 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even the most casual observer can predict the SCOTUS vote with absolute accuracy. We know there is no deliberation, it is an advocate court giving imprimatur to the fascist,racist GOP agenda.
Remember the laughline from Roberts about building consensus for decisions? The only way that'll happen is if he gets more bush appointees because he and his cabal aren't budging, and fortunately neither is the Stevens/Ginsburg group.
January 9, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Combine this ruling with the Civil Rights Division shenanigans and you have just two of the most recent instances of methodical, orchestrated racism.
Poor Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Are there any days she enjoys going to work any more?
January 9, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas live with himself?
January 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hilarious that the Justices can talk about the "horse leaving the barn", while seeming to be worried that the public might perceive their decision on this case along party lines will be partisan.
That horse left the barn during Bush v Gore, and by now is passing the orbit of Neptune.
January 10, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only practical answer is for the Democratic Party to mount a huge effort to help folks register and verify their registration - Howard Dean built the 50 state strategy - here's how to use it.
January 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiana was where the KKK re-emerged in it's most virulent form, in the 20th after 're-constuction' had been reversed in the latter years of the 19th Century. The Klan at the time was thought to have 1 million members, of whom more than a quarter lived in Indiana. Indiana was the MOST viciously racist state outside the South for most of the 20th Century, and was the scene, in 1930, of 'the last organized lynching" in the USA. I am therefore not at all surprised that Indian should also have the most restrictive laws for extending the Franchise.
January 11, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Are there any days she enjoys going to work any more?
I just hope her health holds out another year. And pray for Stevens, too. I keep hoping the 'falling sickness' claims Roberts.
Five mackerel-snapping, genuflecting, pOpus-Dei-loving, reactionary-asshole Catholics on the Supreme Court of the secular USofA is about four too many...
January 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink