Of course, cue the three most leftist judges on the panel to snivel about discrimination.
The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.
A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.
The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.
The Supreme Court’s order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.
“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Ginsburg wrote in dissent.
Gingsberg’s language is both assumptive and the usual Leftist tact of redefining words to suit political ends. There is no evidence that the intent of the law was to discriminate against anyone other than people attempting to fraudulently vote. And getting an id, something that people need to cash checks, fly on planes, enter certain government buildings, secure employment, etc., is not by any stretch of a reasonable person’s imagination a poll tax.
Anyone think a bunch of Texas could cross the border to the south, show up and vote in Mexico? Yeah, right.
Mexican officials unveiled the voting ID two decades ago to properly identify electors in a country with a history of voters casting multiple ballots and curious vote counts resulting in charges of fraud — most notoriously in 1988 when a computer crash wiped out early results favoring the opposition.
The credential proved so good at guaranteeing the identification of electors that it became the country’s preferred credential, one now possessed by just about every adult Mexican. Its widespread acceptance deepened democracy, too, by giving credibility to the Federal Electoral Institute, analysts say. The agency was created as an independent agency to oversee federal elections.
Leftists want to permanently seize the reins of Government and diluting the votes of legitimate voters is just one of many tools.
If Gingsberg were to resign after the mid-terms, Republicans should refuse to confirm any Obama nomination. Indeed, if the GOP keeps the House and retakes the Senate, no justices at the Federal level nominated by this fundamentally transformative President should be confirmed.
A lady can wish.
The Dems would portray one extended SCOTUS vacancy as some kind of crisis, and the Establicans would fail to point out that SCOTUS started out in 1789 with only five justices.
Ginsberg is a {insert female-hating pejorative descriptors of the ‘happyfeet’ sort here, reserved for worst-of-the-worst offenders of our Constitutional processes and those definitely anathema to this little Republic’s sustainability}, and, like all of Barack Obama’s Executive Branch power structure elitists, a red-diaper-wearing professional mythomane.
All the democrat clients who depend on government largess already need to get IDs to get their benefits. The argument against requiring IDs is completely ridiculous and they know that.
u
It is most ridiculous, especially given that there are several forms of identification that would be considered acceptable:
–Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
–Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
–Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
–Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
–United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
–United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
–United States passport.
They can even be expired, so long as they expired not more than 60 days prior to voting. Even temporary driver’s license (those postcard-sized papers given to you as a receipt to serve until your regular DL arrives in the mail) will be accepted.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/id/acceptable-forms-of-ID.pdf
It is all theater anyway. The intent is to lull and gull everybody into believing that voting can make a difference. As long as the sheeple are still voting, they impart some legitimacy to the clown posse in Mordor on the Potomac.
In other news, this is never going to happen, h8erz:
Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
Now stop being hysterical and learn to embrace the ghey! Harder. With feeling. Or else.
Pablo’s link deserves its own post.
Having a specific place that people actually have to TRAVEL TO to vote is an unconstitutional poll tax.
Therefore, the dissenters will now suggest the polling station should go to every single citizen where they are on election day.
Or, they’re really more interested in power than principle, which is sort of the Occam’s Razor version.