Skip to comments.Commentary: The partisan elephant unnoticed in the room
Posted on 01/11/2009 10:25:16 AM PST by thecodont
The Supreme Court, studiously avoiding almost all mention that it was examining a thoroughly partisan political battle, spent a spirited hour on Wednesday looking for ways either to scuttle a major test case over voters rights or to find a way as if the Justices were writing a law themselves to soften the impact of a tough state requirement for a photo ID before a voter may cast a ballot at the polls.
Only two Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens even hinted at the real-world fact that the photo ID law in Indiana is at the heart of a bitter, ongoing contest reaching well beyond Indiana. It is a dispute between Republicans worried over election fraud supposedly generated by Democrats to pad their votes, and Democrats worried over voter suppression supposedly promoted by Republicans to cut down their opposition. The abiding question at the end: can a decision be written that does not itself sound like a political, rather than a judicial, tract? Can the Court, in short, avoid at least the appearance of another Bush v. Gore?
At issue in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) is the constitutionality of a 2005 Indiana law that voters who show up at the polls without a photo ID will be allowed only to cast a provisional ballot, to be validated later at another place only if they can travel there and then prove identity. It has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court, leading to appeals to the Supreme Court by Democrats or their state party apparatus.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
If I have to show an ID and pass a background check to buy a firearms at an FFL then what is the big deal about this? One a guaranteed enumerated RIGHT and the other a qusi-right by statue not Constitutional. Our USSC has really screwed up this country over the years.
No, because it is a political matter.
Let's try to get inside the mind of the SCOTUS as it's operating right now. What's grabbing their attention?
SCOTUSblog.com has decided to hear Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita as consolidated cases. These cases concern voter ID guidelines and voting rights.
Take a look at how the Justices are split on this issue.
I'll post this as a separate article ("The Partisan Elephant in the Room") because I think it has a bearing on the fortunes of the BO natural-born qualification cases currently before SCOTUS.
TOUGH? FOR WHO? What, pray tell, is so friggin tough about that? It will be tough to vote 2-3 times,WITH A BIG MAYBE. Tough for illegals, but for NORMAL LEGAL cititizens, a drop in the bucket. Come off of it Justices, give us a friggin break. Utterly amazing how VERY VERY STUPID THESE Justices can be.
You need a photo ID to use a Credit Card in CA.
Someone needs to explain to me how ANYONE can consider proving you are who you claim to be is a hinderance to voting suprsses legit voting or in any manner is a violation of a CITIZENS rights.
I don’t want some dirtbag that ACORN signed up registering as me and casting a fraudulent vote that disqualifies my legit vote.
Political is all it is. I’m tired of my vote being diluted
by the uninformed, emotional, handout types, dead voters,
and koolaid drinkers. I think that not only ID but some
other requirements should be placed on voters. We don’t
allow children to vote, so why should someone who can’t
even understand the issues, be allowed to vote once or
Now, just substitute "presidential candidate" for "you" in that sentence, and it seems that suddenly new light is shed on the current silence from SCOTUS on the BO natural-born certification cases.
You need a photo ID to buy decongestant pills.
Look at the perceived and often real voter fraud, particularly from the left (deft) and the inherent dangers of stolen elections are enormous. Not only is id required but significant changes to election software including scrubbing the database every whichway to catch the perpetrators and criminally prosecute them. Let’s put ACORN out of business.
Because once you open the door, there will be no stopping it. requirements will be used by partisan to increase their advantage. The problem here is that democracy requires honest people to function. Look at the mess they have in Minnesota with many of the precincts having more votes than voters.
I believe we have outgrown our system of government. It was designed for God fearing, patriotic, salt of the earth type people.
You need a photo ID to use a Credit Card in CA.
You need a photo ID to buy decongestant pills.”
Same here in Nevada.
Took me 27 minutes to go thru the hoops to buy 2 packages of generic Sudafed at Wal-Mart a month ago.
The lady couldn’t accept the fact that I hadn’t bought any since 2001. Asked me for any other names/aliases I had ever had. I didn’t go into the fact that I was married twice- 1958 and 1977. Probably not inside the realm of her computer records. Made me totally aware of buying all my ammo with cash, tho.
I know I am in the minority around here on this issue, but I do not want our driver’s licenses to be a national ID card. I believe the federal government will abuse a nation ID card, the first chance it gets.
Yes, it would be nice to have an ID at the polls. There will be plenty down side in time to make that one good thing, not worth the trouble. And then there’s the ability to buy a fraudulent ID down the block.
This nation somehow got to this point without a national ID. We don’t need one now.
Folks, the real problem with voting is not the ID. It’s the instant or blind registration. It’s the open primary elections. It’s allowing folks to vote for two weeks to a month prior to election day. It is also the primary process itself, that is gamed to the point that we see incompetents selected to be the party standard bearer before 0.25% of the populace has even voted.
There is also obviously a problem with votes that appear days or weeks after the election, supposedly put aside and lost until they are found.
We’ve got plenty of problems to deal with BEFORE we go desperate and demand an ID card.
The point is that if someone votes illegally then my vote may be cancelled out. Or if they do it multiple times then it is even a worse case. Voting is a privilege not a right just like driving a car is a privilege.
The states should have the opportunity to establish their own requirements if they feel the federal requirements are too lax. After all the person being elected is to REPRESENT the people.
The deal in MN changes a lot of things for us all. Not just for the people of MN.
If more votes than voters then because of the secret ballot requirements the whole deal should be thrown out and a new election ordered or there should be no one seated in a national office.
In the case of OB if there is even a hint that he is not qualified then that must be resolved before he is allowed to be seated as president.
It is truly time for a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for all levels of elected government including the courts.
Works for me!
This is over a year old. The Court issued its ruling in April 2008.
True. Yet a ruling from less than a year ago might be useful for getting an idea of how the SCOTUS might deal with current (possibly related) cases.
Can’t get a bank account, or cash your Govt subsidy checks without a Drivers/State photo ID either...Can’t buy Liquor without one either.