![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() i thought i'd do some digging, to see if any voter id laws had reached scotus. i know individual states have been working, or not working, on such laws, so i wanted to see if any had a ruling at the fed court level. i figured i better do some checking, for myself, as nothing was ringing a bell on the subject, but that may just mean i didn't see it.
so, this is one of the very first things i found: http://archive.redstate.com/stories/..._voter_id_law/ scotus voted 6-3 in favor of indiana's voting law, which required id. an excerpt from the above linked article: 'Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have upheld the law on the broader ground that it imposed the same requirements equally on all voters. Both opinions give great weight to the state interest in ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, dissented. This is a major defeat for the Democrats' efforts to prevent states from requiring valid identification to vote. The lawsuit was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party.' .......i think that the part about imposing the same requirement on all voters is absolutely the key! regardless of who needs an id, the steps are the same for all-not just for some. therefore, id requirements are absolutely not a form of discrimination.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() my question now is, why does the DOJ continue to attack individual states voter id laws, when the supreme court ruled that way back on '08?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Hint: you've completely misunderstood the subject, that is not what the DOJ is currently "attacking".
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Why is the GOP/ALEC instituting newly restrictive voter ID laws? As other Republicans have already admitted publicly, it's because they will do anything to cheat and win an election. Disgusting.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_...d_black_votes/ Florida's disgraced former GOP chairman Jim Greer says in legal deposition that the party had meetings about "keeping blacks from voting" and "suppressing black votes"
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Doonsbury comic strip this past week:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Nobody is trying to throw out any requirement for voter ID. The ALEC-GOP laws in discussion are deliberately trying to narrow what type of Voter ID is permitted, and that narrowing has already been found, by federal courts, as discriminatory.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |