I've got a suggestion where he can go....
Posted on 04/28/2008 7:15:07 AM PDT by Aristotelian
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
This discriminates against dead people.
There was a Fox News Alert this morning on this, just before 8am California time, and followups all that hour.
I've got a suggestion where he can go....
Good luck with that. McCain earned the whole "Maverick" thing by ignoring or attacking fellow Republicans.
Yup.
Too little, too late.
Should have said it forty years ago.
but that’s not an excerpt.
I thought President Bush never listened to the conservative base. You can't have it both ways. Alito and Roberts were both chosen by President Bush. He also appointed other great judges to the lower courts, such as Janice Brown.
Sorry, I must disagree -the Real ID is just to Track us the NON-criminals ...If they can’t DEPORT the 12 million illegals here - why the hell are we trying to get law abiding citizens to get a “real-id” .... it’s the SAME with the 2nd Amendment- tracking those who have a gun instead of tracking down criminals who commit CRIMES with Guns. I personally believe that the Real ID is a communist concept and will increase the powers of the next socialist President. (no thanks to the current one)
It's free (and easy) for Seniors in Kalifornia.
Very good news indeed!
I see that California wasn’t on your list requiring I.D., I know they didn’t ask me. Also during our last election, 48 percent of votes were mail-in.
Dear Justice Souter, please define “citizen.”
Thanks for the ping. This is good news, for a change.
They're saving that headline for when the asteroid hits.
Missouri still has a Republican governor. And I think I’ll email my state representative anyway, (who is a very reasonable, thoughtful Democrat), and make sure she knows what happened federally. If there was ever cause to amend the Missouri constitution, here it is. Thanks for the info.
As an immigration activist who lobbies the Hill on immigration issues, I am well aware of what Obama's and Hillary's positions on amnesty are. They are the same as McCain's. They voted for both of the McCain bills, S 2611 in 2006 and McCain-Kennedy in 2007. I will be fighting to stop such an amnesty being passed in Congress and it will be easier to stop if a Dem is in the WH.
The Dems want this to be seen as a bipartisan measure. They want Reps to share the responsibility for the consequences, which will take about two decades to play out completely with 66 to 100 million new LEGAL immigrants entering this country over that period. This tidal wave of immigration will change the political landscape of this country. There will be plenty of friction and polarization. For what it is worth, I would rather the Dems be held totally accountable for the consequences so that the Reps or whatever conservative movement arises can form a coalition to try to take back the country. It could be futile, but there will be no other choice.
Democrats have been pushing no-strings amnesty since at least the 2nd Clinton term.
The Democrats were emboldened and assisted by McCain and RINOs in the Senate who took the lead in passing the 2006 Senate bill, S 2611 in a Rep controlled Senate and House with a Rep in the WH. Bush supported McCain's efforts and slammed the House enforcement first bill [H.R. 4437], which passed the House with 34 Dems signing on. Although the Senate Reps voted 32 to 23 AGAINST it, the Dems voted 38 to 4 FOR it. McCain and 22 of the RINOs voted with the Dems who used the Reps as political cover calling the bill Hagel-Martinez.
And the 1990 Immigration Act [signed by Bush 41]:
Raised the annual ceiling from 270,000 to 700,000 for 1992-94 and 675,000 afterwards (including 480,000 family-sponsored, 140,000 employment-based, and 55,000 "diversity" immigrants)
Allows an unlimited number of visas for immediate relatives –children, parents and spouses – of US citizens, not counted under the cap
The 125,000 allowable refugees are also not counted under the cap
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In about a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history, and per the Pew Report, it will be one in 5 by 2050.
It was Sununu who pushed Reagan to appoint Souter.
Hmmm...let's see.
1. Ours is a republican form of government. We elect people from our home districts and states who (at least in theory if not always in practice) represent their constituents' viewpoints.2. In the mid-to-late 1990's DEMOCRATS began agitating for a repeat of President Reagan's 1986 amnesty. By the 2000 campaign, the issue had heated up enough so that then-Governor Bush included his own plan for immigration reform, one that he believed was better than the uber-leftist plans of the Democrats.
3. In his 2nd term, when the President's immigration proposals began working themselves through Congress, his right-wing (meaning us) forcefully expressed their opposition and all of the various versions of the bill were killed.
4. In other words, our representatives abided by our wishes. I do not understand why conservatives, who believe themselves to have a more firm grasp of our Constitutional form of government than others, continue to whine about a legislative battle they won hands down.
5. Yes, defeating that legislation took strong agitation on our part, BUT THAT'S PRECISELY HOW OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!
6. However, with a Democrat in the White House, and larger majority margins in the Congress, the legislative battle we won regarding immigration in the Bush years will become just a distant memory. The Democrats will not respond to any agitation from conservatives, becase we are not their constituency. The Democrats WILL enact and sign into law a true amnesty with no strings attached. Why? Largely because conservatives can't get over the fact that Republicans supported an immigration reform bill THAT WAS DEFEATED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.