I am glad you think that a man who has given more to this country than most of us pouges will be treasonous. I would like to say you disgust me but you, Valiant and the rest of your crowd have reached the point of hyperbole so ridiculous it is satire.

Squid Shark

“Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech”.

So you trust the judgement, and Constitutional scolarship of a man who reads this, then believes that his job, in Congress, as Senator, is to abridge freedom of speech (but only on political matters, and near an election).

Because that’s OK…

Right. So lets trust him. Because his track record couldn’t be better. Sure he willfully violated his oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution; and he crafted a law that violates the clear text of the First Amendment.

But who cares. Surely he’ll nominate judges who want the real text of the Constitution to apply. So the first thing they’d do if they honestly had that position would be to strike down McCain-Feingold…

Yeah, McCain strikes me as the kind of man who would pick SCOTUS members who will strike down what he considers his “best” legislation. Not at all worried about trying to protect it, I’m sure he’ll sacrifice it for Constitutional integrity.

You know, or maybe not. Maybe he’ll protect it and need Justices who don’t read the real text of the Constitution, but who will “reinterpret” it in order to preserve McCain-Feingold and McCain’s “legacy” from Congress…

Hard to say. Now in 2002 when he passed it, he thought it was more important than his oath. In 2005 when he sued the FEC to try to force them to regulate internet communications as well, he thought it was more important than the Constitution. In 2007 when he submitted an Amicus brief he was clearly trying to state that certain people and organizations should not have the right to speak near an election on political matters.

So, will he appoint Justices that defend the real Constitution, or the fake one that has revisions and retractions that only he knows and he has been working from for over 6 years?

What is it with Americans?

Here in Canada you can’t vote unless you produce valid ID.

Why is that so hard to understand?

The preceeding was directed at the left in the US of A.

MT

I support it as long as the state provides free voter ID.

jdun on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Indiana DOES supply a free photo ID to people that can’t afford them.

Here you go – straight from Indiana’s web site:
Identification Card – 6 Year 13.00
Identification Card For Voting Purposes – 6 Year FREE
Duplicate or Amended Identification Card 13.00
Special Identification Card – 6 Year
(Ages 65 and over or Disabled) 10.00
Duplicate Special Identification Card – 6 Year
(Ages 65 and over or Disabled) 10.00
Amended Special Identification Card – 6 Year
(Ages 65 and over or Disabled) 10.00

Period dot bingo

thank god the massive voter fraud problem will be solved now.

Wait, but there isn’t a massive voter fraud problem. Why pray tell would Republicans support this then? hmmmmm

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Well, it’s hardly massive voter fraud. Just enough to throw a few elections here and there. Which just happens to occur in Democratic strongholds such as certain parts of St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, and, ummmm, Indian reservations. Which might, of course, have a little to do with the fact that Democrats fight measures against voter fraud tooth and nail.

So sometimes we get a senator who wasn’t really elected elected. Nothing to worry about.

Do I really need to add /sarc?

The US Supreme Court decided yesterday that Indiana’s Voter Identification law requiring citizens to show a picture ID in order to vote does not violate the Constitution. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stephens, argues that re…

I can’t stand it any more! The lack of voter fraud convictions (data) is NOT based on no voter fraud. It is based on lack of prosecutions. Lack of voter fraud is not remotely indicated by lack of prosecutions or convictions. STOP stating that as a fact, like any other brainwashed cosmo/socialist/liberal. Voter fraud is one of those crimes that is political in nature, widespread where one party predominates in an area, and generally carries a penalty much less than the effort to prosecute. Also, don’t think politically elected prosecutors have any impetus to try low penalty political crime. If it ain’t filed or prosecuted, there are few convictions. Hence, your idiotic statement of fact.

I have lived in the chicago and Lake County Indiana area in a previous life. I now live in Oklahoma. There is voter fraud, more in the Chicago and Lake County than OK. I know it when I see it.

Has anybody considered the old pinkie in the inkwell trick. The little sticker that says “I have voted” comes off so easily, but it does verify to your boss that you really did vote if you took time off.

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that states can indeed require photo identification from voters…
Popularity: unranked [?]……

Do you think that either Roberts or Alito could/would have been confirmed without the Gang of Fourteen, given the makeup of the Senate at the time? If so, how?

nktr on April 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Well, the republicans were ready to drop the “nuclear option” IIRC, which would have put an end to ALL of the “fillibustering” of not only Roberts and Alito but of ALL federal judges.

McCain is so anxious to work with democrats and so willing to dump on republicans I don’t have much confidence in his possible picks to the Supreme Court.

…there were only a hundred and twenty federal prosecutions and eighty-six convictions between 2002 and 2006—a period in which close to four hundred million votes were cast. If there isn’t a problem, why fix it? Such laws will effectively disenfranchise thousands for the purpose of preventing maybe a few voter fraud cases.
crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 5:27 PM

As I posted earlier, voter fraud is scarce to non-existent. The only fraud in regarding this issue is the Republicans purported justification.
crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM

You are using poor logic. Number of convictions does not indicate the number of fraudulent votes. Convictions depend on the vigor and motives of the prosecution as much as anything. If the prosecutors are happy with election results how motivated are they to find any evidence of fraud?

You must agree that there are many times more robberies, rapes, murders, etc., than there are convictions.

I rest my case.

That being said, this law is just, fair, and necessary. I don’t need to write a brief to explain this to my fellow HA readers.

Still, it’s good that this law was upheld. It should cut down on in-person voter fraud.

Some people are just so freakin helpless.

tlynch001 on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 PM

A more apt description would be – hopeless.

I’m not convinced that truly was Buzzy Ginsburg casting her vote or napping as usual through testimony. So lets have the court reporter simply blank out her vote or append an asterisk in the ruling summary until ole Ruthie dear can fork over some picture ID proving that the ACLU didn’t send over some hack impersonator in a wig and her robe. C’mon bailiff, make Buzzy prove that’s really her and not Marie Antoinette (”Why, then let them vote fake!”) hiding behind the bench.

Not surprised by Souter or Breyer. Both could better serve a purpose for calibrating EEG monitors for zero level.

I don’t think so and neither do the Supremes The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with……

Dems are against it because it will suppress voter turnout amongst traditionally democractic-leaning constituencies, not because of voter fraud.

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM

I have news for you: Illegal aliens and dead people aren’t allowed to vote, and living American citizens aren’t allowed to vote twice.

I’m all for suppressing those constituencies. Of course, the Dems can’t win without them, so I feel your pain.

In some rural counties, election fixing was as common as boiled peanuts.

RBMN on April 28

Which is how “Landslide Lyndon” Johnson got into politics in Texas.

I blogged about this this morning, but the real scope of the ruling is just now being fleshed out, and a few things have occurred to me.

First of all, as I said earlier, this is a complete victory for common sense.  It just makes simple sense…