1 posted on
03/12/2012 4:03:04 PM PDT by
Jean S
To: Jean S
Thank God there is still some sanity in this crazy upside down world.
2 posted on
03/12/2012 4:07:47 PM PDT by
diamond6
(Check out: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/home.php and learn about the faith.)
To: Jean S
If true, this is great news. WIll we see this news on MSM any time soon?
3 posted on
03/12/2012 4:08:55 PM PDT by
entropy12
(Republicans do not hate, that is a monopoly of democrats.)
To: Jean S
Shove it up your butt DOJ.
4 posted on
03/12/2012 4:08:59 PM PDT by
boomop1
(term limits is the only way to save this country.)
To: Jean S
Outstanding! Just in time for Texas to tell the DOJ to stuff it!
5 posted on
03/12/2012 4:09:38 PM PDT by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: Jean S
This is old news from 2008?
6 posted on
03/12/2012 4:12:23 PM PDT by
entropy12
(Republicans do not hate, that is a monopoly of democrats.)
To: Jean S
Right. This happened a few years ago, so how does a lower court come up with the “unconstitutional” ruling today? As for the criminal DOJ, when are the states going to tell Holder and the gang to stick in their pipe and smoke it?!
9 posted on
03/12/2012 4:18:14 PM PDT by
WXRGina
(Further up and further in!)
To: Jean S
That was 2008, this is 2012! There are now different laws for Holder's “people” via Derrick Bell, Obama, and the Critical Race theory.
13 posted on
03/12/2012 4:25:17 PM PDT by
avacado
To: Jean S
O would say Obama is going to lose in Texas. Since the object as stated in the case is to uphold the integrity of the elections, the ID requirement is not prejudicial...everyone must comply.
Hillary fought against the ID bit as NY senator.
To: Jean S
Why is it such a burden for John Doe, when he shows up to vote, shows some form of identification that he is the John Doe listed on the voter registration role? How is that a burden?
17 posted on
03/12/2012 4:34:35 PM PDT by
ops33
(Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
To: Jean S
...In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud...
So how the heck can Holder get away with blocking similar state laws? This should be an impeachable offense.
22 posted on
03/12/2012 4:59:00 PM PDT by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
To: Jean S
Thank you!!!
P.S. some people are not to bright...
23 posted on
03/12/2012 5:05:09 PM PDT by
phockthis
(http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
To: Jean S
What are interactions with the government that require Photo ID?
Gun ownership
Driving.
What else?
Thank you.
24 posted on
03/12/2012 5:33:30 PM PDT by
NoLibZone
(Liberal concern for womens rights is fake. I submit their love of Bill Maher as proof.)
To: Jean S; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; Wisconsinlady; JPG; ...
2008 USSC Decision on Voter ID
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
To: Jean S
31 posted on
03/12/2012 10:39:48 PM PDT by
llandres
(Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson