The court has long recognized that the right to vote is so fundamental that a state cannot restrict it unless it can show that the harm it is seeking to prevent outweighs the harm it imposes on voters.

The Indiana law does not meet this test. The harm it imposes on voters, some of whom will no doubt be discouraged from casting ballots, is considerable. The state’s interest in the law, on the other hand, is minimal. It was supposedly passed to prevent people from impersonating others at the polls, but there is no evidence that this has ever happened in Indiana. It seems far more likely that the goal of the law’s Republican sponsors was to disenfranchise groups that lean Democratic.

Unfortunately, only three justices voted to hold the law unconstitutional. The other six fell into two groups. Three — Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts — signed a lead opinion that set a disturbingly low bar for what sort of interference with voting the Constitution permits. A second opinion, signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, was worse. It argued for upholding all but the most severe and unjustified burdens on voting. Richard Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor, notes that if the court had taken this opinion’s approach in 1966, it is not clear it would have overturned the poll tax.

This, by the way, is the fruit of an alleged political genius, turdblossom himself, a shamelessly effective tactician, but one of the worst political strategists in modern times. He has helped kill the Republican brand - and poison it for a generation.

dajafi wrote:Don't think anyone's posted this yet:



Sullivan calls this "the Rove effect":

This, by the way, is the fruit of an alleged political genius, turdblossom himself, a shamelessly effective tactician, but one of the worst political strategists in modern times. He has helped kill the Republican brand - and poison it for a generation.

dajafi wrote:NYT editorial:

The court has long recognized that the right to vote is so fundamental that a state cannot restrict it unless it can show that the harm it is seeking to prevent outweighs the harm it imposes on voters.

The Indiana law does not meet this test. The harm it imposes on voters, some of whom will no doubt be discouraged from casting ballots, is considerable. The state’s interest in the law, on the other hand, is minimal. It was supposedly passed to prevent people from impersonating others at the polls, but there is no evidence that this has ever happened in Indiana. It seems far more likely that the goal of the law’s Republican sponsors was to disenfranchise groups that lean Democratic.

Unfortunately, only three justices voted to hold the law unconstitutional. The other six fell into two groups. Three — Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts — signed a lead opinion that set a disturbingly low bar for what sort of interference with voting the Constitution permits. A second opinion, signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, was worse. It argued for upholding all but the most severe and unjustified burdens on voting. Richard Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor, notes that if the court had taken this opinion’s approach in 1966, it is not clear it would have overturned the poll tax.

Except that back in the day, the Poll Tax generally helped elect Democrats. This bunch of partisan hacks certainly wouldn't have countenanced that.

dajafi wrote:My point is less about Stevens than about the Loyal Bushies who came up with this garbage law in the first place.

As I said yesterday, you (and any Republican, for that matter) have absolutely no credibility as a defender of the integrity of the democratic process. Send regrets to Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell, and CC Monica Goodling.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:My point is less about Stevens than about the Loyal Bushies who came up with this garbage law in the first place.

As I said yesterday, you (and any Republican, for that matter) have absolutely no credibility as a defender of the integrity of the democratic process. Send regrets to Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell, and CC Monica Goodling.

As a Democrat you have no credibility in arguing black people shouldn't be slaves. Send regrets to James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas and John C. Calhoun.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:My point is less about Stevens than about the Loyal Bushies who came up with this garbage law in the first place.

As I said yesterday, you (and any Republican, for that matter) have absolutely no credibility as a defender of the integrity of the democratic process. Send regrets to Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell, and CC Monica Goodling.

As a Democrat you have no credibility in arguing black people shouldn't be slaves. Send regrets to James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas and John C. Calhoun.

OK, one more post in this thread before the eventual new one

relevance points go to dajafi

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday accused the Democratic-led Congress of blocking his proposals to deal with rising gas prices and dragging its feet on measures to address the sagging economy. He said he was “open to any ideas,” including a proposal backed by presidential contenders John McCain and Hillary Clinton to suspend gas and diesel taxes this summer.

But Bush quickly said that he favors longer-term fixes, such as encouraging new oil production in the United States and building new refineries at home. He renewed his call for opening areas of Alaska wilderness to oil exploration and production.

As OPEC's president now believes that crude oil prices may climb to as much as $200 a barrel, there are new forecasts here in the U.S. calling for gasoline to jump to between $5 and $6 a gallon over the next two to three years.


Alan Gaines, who is chairman of Houston-based Dune Energy, sees gas rising to $7-$8 a gallon. And Sean Brodrick, who is a commodities tracker at Weiss Research in Jupiter, projects a range of $5 to $6 a gallon.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Obama wins the "World Primary"

VoxOrion wrote:How weird is it that none of you are talking about the whole Obama/Wright thing? The latest response from Obama is rough. This stuff, combined with Hillary, is not good for him - practically a HAMELS storm of "crap, I want people to change the subject!"

jerseyhoya wrote:Send regrets to James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas and John C. Calhoun.