Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

AP ^ | Apr 28 | MARK SHERMAN

[Aristotelian]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

[Let's Roll]

This will just mean they’ll have to do all their fraud through mail ins.

Look for absentee voting to SOAR.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Say what you want about Bush, but he has appointed 2 very good justices to the bench.

Yes, he did. But in my opinion he only deserves credit for one. Why? Because only one was voluntary. Anyone here recall the Harriet Miers fiasco? Want to venture a guess as to how she'd be voting????

[proudpapa]

Even JPS got this one right!

Amazing.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Permit me to correct this for accuracy:

Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots 2 and 3 times each at multiple locations.

And how could we forget the dead? What about their rights?

[Towed_Jumper]

States That Request Photo ID
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Louisiana
Michigan
South Dakota”

Deport...your listing leaves off Arizona. We’ve had the Voter ID law inplace (and upheld by the courts), for a couple of years.

[deport]

Keep reading........

[goldstategop]

Its a good ruling. The U.S Supreme Court's ruling today clears the way for other states to enact photo voter ID laws.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[stockstrader]

This will DEFINITELY hurt a far-left extremeist and black-racist enabler like Senator B. (whose middle name must NEVER be spoken) Obama!!!!....lol

[kabar]

2. In the mid-to-late 1990's DEMOCRATS began agitating for a repeat of President Reagan's 1986 amnesty. By the 2000 campaign, the issue had heated up enough so that then-Governor Bush included his own plan for immigration reform, one that he believed was better than the uber-leftist plans of the Democrats.

Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be a one-time event. Many Reps and Dems voted against it, including John McCain when he was serving in the House. Final tally: 216 Congressmen (125 Democrats, 91 Republicans) for the bill; 211 (138 Democrats, 73 Republicans) against. You can be an apologist for Bush all you want, but in 2000 the Reps controlled Congress and Bush had the veto in the WH. There is no way any immigration reform bill could have passed without Bush's approval. The Dems were not forcing him into anything.

3. In his 2nd term, when the President's immigration proposals began working themselves through Congress, his right-wing (meaning us) forcefully expressed their opposition and all of the various versions of the bill were killed

Wrong. In 2006, the Hegel-Martinez Amnesty bill [S 2611] passed the Senate. It was the Reps who stopped it in the House, i.e., Jim Sensenbrenner. Bush wanted it passed. You should question why a Rep President would try to push this legislation that was opposed by the majority of his own party down our throats.

4. In other words, our representatives abided by our wishes. I do not understand why conservatives, who believe themselves to have a more firm grasp of our Constitutional form of government than others, continue to whine about a legislative battle they won hands down.

Battles are won, but the war is still on. The Dems and RINOs tried to force the Dream Act [read stealth amnesty] down our throat just a few months ago followed by an amendment to the Ag budget bill. The Dems and RINOs are still intent on getting amnesty passed, piecemeal if necessary. The Dems have been blocking the SAVE Act even though Heath Shuler is a sponsor along with plenty of other Dems and Reps. Pelosi won't let it get to the floor for a vote.

In 2008 the Dems will increase their margins in the Senate and House. Groups as diverse as the Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, La Raza, the Catholic Church, ACLU, etc. are still pushing hard for CIR. All three of the remaining candidates for President favor amnesty. There is no political price to pay. We can win the battles and lose the war. As someone who follows this on a daily basis, I am not optimistic about our ability to stop it. The politicians and the media will play to the ignorance of the American public on the subject. They will continue to use words in an Orwellian way to mask what is happening, e.g., undocumented workers, earned path to citizenship, fines, getting to the back of the line, a nation of immigrants, doing work Americans won't do, etc. The ignorance of the American people on this subject is monumental.

5. Yes, defeating that legislation took strong agitation on our part, BUT THAT'S PRECISELY HOW OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You can thank guys like Roy Beck {whom I coordinate with], Mark Krikorian, Robert Rector, and others who provided the channels and data to stop [temporarily] these bills. It is a daily fight and far from over. So stop patting yourself on the back. The real fight is going to take place after November. The other side is already mobilizing. It is well-funded and has plenty of political clout.

The Democrats will not respond to any agitation from conservatives, becase we are not their constituency. The Democrats WILL enact and sign into law a true amnesty with no strings attached. Why? Largely because conservatives can't get over the fact that Republicans supported an immigration reform bill THAT WAS DEFEATED

The majority of Reps voted AGAINST the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills. I have no idea what you mean by "a true amnesty with no strings attached." What the hell do you think the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills were?

[Uncledave]

Problem is the dem states won't institute it

That maybe so, but it's putting pressure in the right direction. At least if the Red States enact it this would be an electoral firewall of sorts. And there's enough right-thinking people in most Blue states to get this on on a ballot as a proposition.

[1035rep]

Excellent post Wolfstar.

[libstripper]

This makes two good, solid, constitutional decisions in a row, the first being the recent death penalty decision. The tea leaves are looking auspicious for a favorable ruling in Heller, the RTKBA case.

[1035rep]

The tea leaves are looking auspicious for a favorable ruling in Heller, the RTKBA case.

bttt 

[Wolfstar]

Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be a one-time event.

What it was supposed to be and what it became in practice are two different things.

Wrong. In 2006, the Hegel-Martinez Amnesty bill [S 2611] passed the Senate. It was the Reps who stopped it in the House, i.e., Jim Sensenbrenner.

A little reading comprehension goes a long way. In my post I said it was defeated. In other words, it was a legislative victory for conservatives and others opposed to immigration "reform." I said that our republican form of government worked as designed, which it did, yet conservatives like you still whine.

Battles are won, but the war is still on.

Yes, it sure is. You claimed that it would be harder to defeat immigration "reform" if McCain is president. I pointed out these facts:

--> That immigration "reform" was defeated with a Republican in the White House and Republicans in larger numbers in Congress than would be the case under a President Obama or a President H. Clinton. To be blunt, conservatives would still have some influence if Republicans do better than predicted this fall.

--> If we have a President Obama or President H. Clinton and huge Dem margins in Congress, nobody is going to listen to us.

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Oh, puhleeese. Don't make yourself out to be a clueless moron. Conservatives across the country vigorously agitated against immigration "reform" using the wide range of ways citizens have at their disposal to influence legislation -- from calling in to talk radio, to emails, phone calls and letters to their congress critters, to blogs and opinion pieces, to posting on web forums such as FR.

I have no idea what you mean by "a true amnesty with no strings attached." What the hell do you think the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills were?

Those bills included fines and other provisions that put at least nominal strings on a "path" to citizenship. The Marxist Democrats that would sweep into office with Obama or Clinton wouldn't even do that much. Most of them want to erase all borders.

[Santa Fe_Conservative]

Actually it was Bush Sr. who appointed Souter.

OOPS...

[Wolfstar]

Excellent post Wolfstar.

Thanks. :)

[Veto!]

Thank God!

[bert]

.....States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.....

This AP piece was written 31 minutes after the announcement

[MBB1984]

They both played the role of Brutus, but Rudman was probably the key player and traitor. Rudman’s actions were more behind the scenes. Rudman knew Souter better than Sunnunu, including his political views. Souter is a Rudman protege and close friend. Rudman appointed Souter as assistant attorney general. Sunnunu later appointed him to the NH Supreme Court.

[Wolfstar]

Yes, he did. But in my opinion he only deserves credit for one. Why? Because only one was voluntary.

Man, that's such a lame, trite argument. Try to follow this train of thought based firmly in our Constitutional form of government:

The President is free to nominate whomever he wishes for posts that require Senate advice and consent.

The Senate is free to vote as it sees fit on any nomination.

The people are free to weigh in on any nomination using the wide array of means available to them in the early 21st Century: emails, phone calls, text messages, snail mail, walk-ins to district offices, call-ins to talk radio, blogging and posting on political forums, participation in associations and groups that lobby congress, and so on.

When the collective weight of the senate's and the people's feedback act to defeat a nomination, either before or in a senate vote, that's just an instance of how our system is supposed to work. We would have a problem only if a President did NOT listen to the will of the people, or if the people are too indifferent to make their opinions known. President Bush and Harriet Miers did listen. She withdrew and he nominated a wonderful candidate in now-Justice Alito. And yet people like you keep whining about what might have been but never was.