Disenfranchisement Upheld by The Supremes

The Supremes have done it again. By stepping on state's rights in voting procedures, they are setting the stage for the next selection of president. Isn't it funny how the repuglicans are all so happy with activist judges when they make rulings in their favor? That's why they are repugnant. Stay tuned for the next election swindle, courtesy of John Paul Stevens, a/k/a TRAITOR!
Supreme Court upholds
photo ID voting law
Mon Apr 28, 2008
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification, a decision critics say could keep some blacks, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporters from voting in the November election.
Resolving a partisan political battle, the country's high court voted 6-3 to reject a legal challenge by Democrats that Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law would deter minorities, the elderly and others from casting ballots.
The main opinion agreed with Republican supporters that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud and safeguard public confidence in the integrity of elections. The Bush administration supported the law.
[...] "The effect of the loss ... will begin to be felt next week when Indiana holds its presidential primary using the voter ID law the court has just upheld," said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University in New York.
The decision could have broad national significance because more than 20 states have adopted voter identification laws and other states are considering similar legislation.
The law requires a government-issued photo ID such as a driver's license to vote in federal, state and local elections.
[...] Reaction to the ruling split along political lines.
[...] "Denying a fundamental right -- the right to vote -- because a person is indigent, lacks a birth certificate or has no access to a vehicle goes against America's better values," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said.
Angela Ciccolo of the NAACP civil rights group said the law would have its greatest impact on voters who are poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities or have disabilities.
The lead opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, held the evidence in the record did not support an attack now on the law's validity.
Three other court members -- conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred in the judgment and issued a separate opinion that the law should be upheld because its overall burden was minimal and justified.
Stevens wrote that states had a "valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." He said voter fraud "could affect the outcome of a close election."
He said the law may place a small burden on a limited number of people -- the elderly born out-of-state who may have difficulty in getting the required documents, the homeless or people with a religious objection to being photographed.
Stevens said politics may have been a factor in adopting the law but that alone did not make it unconstitutional. His opinion left open the possibility of future legal challenges by specific voters.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. Souter said the law threatened to impose major burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of Indiana residents, especially the poor and the elderly. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00940020080428?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
To be fair, not all republicans are repuglicans. Please see previous post: April 16, 2008 Republican Governor Weighs in on Spending Transparency and REAL ID , REAL ID side effects, By Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, for an op-ed from a man with courage and the ability to think beyond party lines (and the next election).

Supreme Court Spins US Citizens Out of Justice

The Boopsy Twins

Court skeptical of taking on Iraq cases
Several Justices Express Doubts About Extending Reach of US Courts Into Iraq
PETE YOSTAP
Mar 25, 2008 13:11 EST
Several Supreme Court justices expressed strong doubts Tuesday about extending the reach of U.S. courts into Iraq to stop the transfer of two American citizens into Iraqi control.
The skepticism by Chief Justice John Roberts and others came after a lawyer representing the Bush administration argued that U.S. courts cannot intervene in the cases of Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar.
Omar allegedly assisted a terrorist network and Munaf allegedly set up the 2005 kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Baghdad. Both proclaim their innocence and both are Sunni Muslims who say they will be tortured if turned over to the Iraqi government.
The Bush administration's legal position is that the two men are being held by the multinational force in Iraq, of which the U.S. contingent is only a part.
[...] Joseph Margulies, the lawyer for Omar and Munaf, says the two are under the control of the U.S. military and should have access to U.S. courts.
Margulies told the justices that "the buck stops with the United States government when it comes to these detainees."
[...] Responding to concerns expressed by Justice Samuel Alito, Margulies said providing Munaf and Omar the rights to which they are entitled as U.S. citizens would not impact the other 20,000 people in custody in Iraq.
[...] Justice John Paul Stevens rejected Margulies's argument that there is a parallel between the cases of Omar and Munaf and that of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen seized on the Afghanistan battlefield and later detained at a naval brig in Charleston, S. C.
"A very different place of detention," Stevens said.
The Supreme Court gave Hamdi the right to use U.S. courts to challenge his detention and the Bush administration eventually released Hamdi.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=100433