Did the Supreme Court Just Elect John McCain?

[Better Believe It]

Counterpunch
April 30, 2008
Voter IDs as a New Kind of Poll Tax
Did the Supreme Court Just Elect John McCain?
By BOB FITRAKIS
and HARVEY WASSERMAN
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of How the GOP stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008 (www.freepress.org) and, with Steve Rosenfeld, of What Happened in Ohio? (the New Press). Bob is publisher of www.freepress.org, where Harvey is senior editor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US Supreme Court has just dealt a serious blow to voters' rights that could help put John McCain in the White House by eliminating tens of thousands of voters who generally vote Democratic. By 6-3 the Court has upheld an Indiana law that requires citizens to present a photo identification card in order to vote. Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, Georgia, Hawaii and South Dakota have similar laws. Though it's unlikely, as many as two dozen other states could add them by election day. Other states, like Ohio, have less stringent ID requirements than Indiana's, but still have certain restrictions that are strongly opposed by voter rights advocates.

The decision turns back two centuries of jurisprudence that has accepted a registered voter's signature as sufficient identification for casting a ballot. By matching that signature against one given at registration, and with harsh penalties for ballot stuffing, the Justices confirmed in their lead opinion that there is "no evidence" for the kind of widespread voter fraud Republican partisans have used to justify the demand for photo ID.

.... there is no indication the corporate media or Democratic Party will be pursuing significant action on this issue any time soon. Though the Kerry Campaign solicited millions of dollars to "protect the vote" in 2004, it has not supported independent research into that election's irregularities. In the King-Lincoln Civil Rights lawsuit, in which we are attorney and plaintiff, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties destroyed ballot materials, in direct violation of federal law. There has been no official legal follow-up on this case, no major media investigation, and no support from the Democratic Party either to investigate what happened in Ohio 2004, or to make sure it doesn't happen again in 2008. The issue has yet to be seriously raised by the major Democratic candidates despite the fact that it could render their campaigns moot.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law in its "Friend of the Court" brief noted that between 10 per cent and 13 per cent of eligible voters lack the identification now required in Indiana. People without an official photo ID tend to be disproportionately minorities and poor, ushering a new Jim Crow era based on race and class apartheid. One Indiana study, according to Inter Press Service reporter Jim Lobe, found that 13.3 per cent of registered Indiana voters lacked the now-required ID, but the numbers were significantly higher for black voters at 18 per cent and young voters age 18-34 at more than 20 per cent.

Please read the entire article at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman04302008.html

[Faux pas]

1. This 'election' a a pie in the sky dream fantasy farce.

Just when we think we've been screwed over enough...

[sellitman]

2. This is a perfect reason why

it is political suicide to stay home, not vote, or even vote for a third party candidate if your horse doesnt come in 1st.

The Supreme Court is already tilted to the right. One more Conservative judge will screw us for the foreseeable future.

We MUST NOT let McBush win at any cost.

[Better Believe It]

4. Supreme Court Will Continue Right-Wing Drift Under Dem Or Rep Administration Or Congress

"One more Conservative judge will screw us for the foreseeable future."

The Democratic Party leadership did nothing to stop Bush's right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court and that certainly wouldn't change under a McCain administration.

Now what would happen under a Hillary Clinton or Obama administration?

That's easy to figure out. They would nominate conservatives who are acceptable to the Republican minority in Congress.

After all, unlike the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans would filibuster against any nomination they oppose.

Isn't that right?

[gatorboy]

8. If you have such a low opinion of the party what are you doing here?

Especially considering you JUST joined?

[Better Believe It]

9. It's Not An Opinion It's a Fact!

Are you denying the fact that not a single Bush/Republican Supreme Court appointment has been blocked by the Democratic Party and their leadership in Congress?

Are you also denying the fact that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress give up the right to filibuster against any of Bush's government appointments?

Facts are facts.

Now if you can dispute any of the above and can prove that I'm mistaken please go ahead and do so.

I'd like you to prove me wrong!

I bet you can't do that. And I bet you may also support those Democratic enablers in Congress who voted for just about every appointment and major piece of right-wing legislation advanced by Bush and his rich Republican pals in Congress.

If you want to defend Bush enablers go right ahead. I could than ask you what are you doing here?

But, I won't. If you want to defend those Democrats who vote for Bush's policies that is your right.

But , I really hope you're not just acting as an apologist for those Democrats who have gone along with Bush's reactionary program in Congress.

Some Democrats have fought Bush. I think you should support them!

[gatorboy]

10. That has got to be the dumbest (and longest) avoidance of a question I've read yet.

You certainly have that right wing "try to put the other side on the defensive" ploy down pat. Bravo! :rofl:


But seriously, what are you doing here?

[Better Believe It]

11. Can't Deal With The Subject Matter?

That's what it looks like to me.

Your response to my last post was a non-response.

That's because what I wrote about Bush's appointments and the failure of the Democratic leadership to stop Bush's appointments and policies was absolutely true and can be documented.

Isn't that right?

Because you can't challenge or dispute the facts I presented you'd rather engage in personal attacks against people you disagree with.

Isn't that also right?

Like I said. It seems to me that you're here acting as an apologist for those Democratic Party enablers who voted for Bush's appointments and policies.

If you're not, just indicate you don't think any Democratic Senators should have vote for Bush's government appointments and policies.

You can't do that, can you?

Now if you're going to engage in personal attacks rather than debate real issues with DU'ers you don't agree with, our discussion is CLOSED!

[gatorboy]

12. Heh! Your FIRST post to me was non-responsive

You're hilarious. And a bit TOO defensive on the matter. Case definitely closed. ;)

[lonestarnot]

14. What fact? Looks more like something you dreamed.

:rofl: don't get any on the walls. We just painted!

[Better Believe It]

15. These Two Facts: Do You Wish To Disprove Them? You Can't!

Not a single Bush/Republican Supreme Court appointment wa blocked by the Democratic Party and their leadership in Congress.

The Democratic Party leadership in Congress give up the right to filibuster against any of Bush's government appointments.

[lonestarnot]

17. Have you counted lately? and how bout your friend Joe Liebershultz?

[sellitman]

13. Nope.

Our last Democratic President put a Liberal on the Court and so would either Obama or Clinton. This time we will have the majority in Congress too.

[alarimer]

7. exept that I live in Texas which McCain almost certainly carry.

My vote will not count. It makes no difference here.

[Indydem]

3. As long as the ID's are issued free, I am behind this law...

Voting is our most sacred right, and we should protect it against those who may violate those laws, no matter whho they may be.

I'm going to contact the local nursing home to see if I can volunteer to shuttle some residents to the DMV if they need to get IDs.

The law is constitutional, so says the SCOTUS, so lets make it work in OUR favor by getting all citizens registered with free ID's!

[guyanakoolaid]

5. I agree - otherwise it is a poll tax, clear and simple

[Better Believe It]

6. Photo ID Lynchpin Of Concerted Republican Election Strategy

Also from the article:

"Photo ID has long been a lynchpin of a concerted GOP strategy to eliminate Democratic voters. In the wake of the theft of the 2004 election in Ohio, Republican activists produced heavily publicized allegations of massive voter fraud, virtually all of which proved to be false.

Nonetheless, the drumbeat for restrictive ID requirements has been steadily rising from GOP strongholds. Other such laws are now virtually certain to follow in states with Republican-controlled legislatures, though it's unclear how many more can be put into law by November.

Thus the GOP hope that millions of Americans will be voting on hackable computers this November, and that millions more may be eliminated from the rolls altogether, seems very close to fruition. Whether this will swing the election to John McCain remains to be seen. But this Supreme Court decision allowing the demand for photo ID makes it much more likely."

[Elspeth]

16. God, we're a banana republic.

:scared: