Is the Supreme Court Picking Another President?

In this case, timing is everything.

Who does today's Supreme Court Decision help more, Obama or Hillary?

The SCOTUS decided who would be our president in 2000, appointing George W. Bush.

Are they again interfering in the elective process to influence who will be the Democratic candidate?

BBC reports:

"The US Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana state law requiring people to show photo identification before voting, to guard against fraud.


Many Democrats believe that the voter ID laws represent an attempt by Republicans to suppress turnout among groups -- like African-Americans and the poor -- which traditionally vote for the Democrats.

And civil rights activists say that there is little history of voter fraud in Indiana."

The word is that the decision on Voter ID laws in Indiana, that the right wing neanderthals in the supreme court decided on today was expected to come in June. That's when most SCOTUS decisions are reported.

This decision, an abomination against Democracy and voting rights, directly supports and serves the Republican mission to make it more difficult for or to block poor, minority and youth voters from casting their votes at the polls entirely. This was part of the plan that Gonzales and his tainted Justice Department was working on.

The decision was due out in June, but, since the Bush and Reagan appointees have been so extra efficient, the ruling allows Indiana to use the law to make it more difficult for Democratic primary voters next week.

Who do you think it will help -- the candidate with reliably voting senior citizens or the candidate who gets support from students and blacks?

Yup. We know who the right wing wants to see running against McCain. It's pretty sad to see the SCOTUS getting its hands in the picture of presidential politics again. But not surprising. It's been said before, but I'll say it again. Reagan and Bush have damned America with this toxic batch of Judiciary horror stories for decades to come. It certainly reminds us why a McCain victory would surely doom democracy and the constitution of this great nation. It will become this "once" great nation.

Comments

[akhmed]

The Supreme Court MUST issue its decisions by June, but it is under no obligation or tradition to release decisions that are already written late in session. If a case was argued early in the term, all the opinions are written, and there is nothing further to decide, it can come out much earlier, and some controversial decisions do.

I don't think there is any conspiracy aspect to this, especially since Justice Stevens wrote the lead opinion.

[jvarga]

I don't get it, how does requiring a photo ID equate to an abomination against democracy and voting rights? Could it not be viewed as preserving voting rights, as in someone can't go pretend to be me or otherwise fraudulently vote (thus diluting the voting power of legitimate voters)?

[1will]

So poor, minority or youth voters are unable to show ID at the polls?
While I have problems with more requirements being added in order to vote I believe the ID requirement is intended to cut down on voter fraud. I also believe those that oppose this law are actually in favor of voter fraud and know their party thrives on the votes of illegals, felons and the deceased.

[Rule Of Law]

The Constitution says nothing about national identity cards, voter cards, or any other cards.

[liberalghost]

Ahhhhh, but it does define citizenship. You must be a Bush voter.

[BrighterStar]

It may define citizenship, but it does not say that a state cannot verify the citizenship if its voters.

[Rule Of Law]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is the definition of citizen. How that applies to the Supreme Court stacking the deck for neo-cons and Republicans to steal another election by disenfranchising minorities, the elderly and the poor, escapes me? And how you deduced that I, of all people, was a Bush voter. escapes me as well.

Today it is photo ID cards for voting--no regulations for absentee voters where most fraud takes place, odd?--next, on the pretext o 911, National Identity Cards; soon we'll have checkpoints and guards with German Shepherds asking for, "Your Papers, Please!"

Under law, you need give only your name, address, and date of birth to law enforcement, unless driving a car, where you must also provide a driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. As free people we've never been required to show proof of citizenship, or justify our existence to any one. This voter card law is a step in the direction of Fascism.

[Ben Dixon]

If I have to use a picture ID to prove that I'm old enough to purchase booze or to use my credit card, why shouldn't I have to use picture ID to prove that I am elligable to vote? Proving who you are in no way limits a person's right to vote.

[paixa3]

it was totally against the constitution for the high court to interfere with the election.

REGARDLESS of the outcome, they were traitors to all people.

[BrighterStar]

All they did was reverse a lower court.

[batgirl71]

I think this calls for a quick lawsuit that this decision should not apply in this uncoming election. It is impossible for individuals who do not have gov. ID and their birth cert. to get all this in a week. Any lawyers out there? Is there anything that could be done about this now that the Supremes have played their partisan role?

[liberalghost]

News flash! November is more than a week away, battygirl. Check any calender.On your world, do all Mexicans, Chinese, and (Asian) Indians vote in American elections?

[MzTexas]

I have to show a picture ID here in Texas and have had to do so for years. Since the Indiana ID is to be given to the voters FREE, it shouldn't pose any more problems than registering to vote.

[mnnice]

Perfect timing huh.The people without i.d wouldnt have time to get one if they wanted to. Its going to take barak two terms just to start weeding all this corruption out of this country.

[LivingStardust]

I think it's about time to forget obeying their orders.

[BrighterStar]

Does that go for Roe v. Wade as well. You might be on to something.

[flanardiente]

It cuts both ways, of course, but it's a wonderfully American solution. The guy cruising at 80 down the freeway with the beer between his legs would probably look down on the hippie in the van who's so loaded on pot that he thinks he's speeding at 50, but they have this in common, they're both choosing which laws to obey and which to ignore. Andy Jackson said it best when he uprooted the Cherokee from their ancestral lands in defiance of the Court:
"Justice Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Something this current gang of sell-outs on the Court don't seem to understand (or care about, if they do), is that when you corrupt the law, people cease to respect it.