Skip to comments.
Text of Supreme Court Voter ID decision
United States Supreme Court ^
| 4/28/08
| United States Supreme Court
Posted on 04/28/2008 2:02:21 PM PDT by Huntress
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Case No. 07-21
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: crawford; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; transcript; voterid
I've noticed that some news stories regarding this decision have already been posted, but I haven't seen the decision itself on FR, so here it is.
1
posted on
04/28/2008 2:02:22 PM PDT
by
Huntress
To: Huntress
2
posted on
04/28/2008 2:02:39 PM PDT
by
Huntress
(“When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.”--Tuco)
To: Huntress
Three dissents. Unbelievable how judges will let their politics color their judgment. How could anyone seriously believe the Constitution prohibits government from asking for as much ID to vote as to access an airport concourse?
3
posted on
04/28/2008 2:08:04 PM PDT
by
colorado tanker
(Number nine, number nine, number nine . . .)
To: Huntress
Good to see them get one right.
I remember 2000 when 104% of the registered voters in Philadelphia voted. As I recall it was something like 94% Gore, 5% Bush.
I hope a lot more states enact Indiana’s law.
4
posted on
04/28/2008 2:09:10 PM PDT
by
InABunkerUnderSF
("Gun Control" is not about the guns. "Illegal Immigration" is not about the immigration)
To: Huntress
Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dessented - What a shock!
5
posted on
04/28/2008 2:15:17 PM PDT
by
StACase
To: StACase
6
posted on
04/28/2008 2:15:54 PM PDT
by
StACase
To: Huntress
Since this only requires “citizens voting in person to present government-issued photo identification,” Indiana should expect a spike in democrats voting by mail this year.
7
posted on
04/28/2008 2:21:44 PM PDT
by
ConservaTexan
(February 6, 1911)
To: InABunkerUnderSF
I hope a lot more states enact Indiana’s law.The law's only part of it, though. Here in Florida during the last election I almost had to force my Id on the poll worker and she did not read it. I'd say the check was effectively "do you have one?" and not necessarily whose Id it actually was. And that in a red county with a good Elections office. Expect that kind of "jury nullification" in any locale and poll workers better be on their toes in precincts that historically had flaky counts. Don't even bother getting out of your bunker in SF unless it's for the show.
8
posted on
04/28/2008 2:22:48 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(Who Would Montgomery Brewster Choose?)
To: NonValueAdded
9
posted on
04/28/2008 2:23:45 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(Who Would Montgomery Brewster Choose?)
To: StACase
The dissents are barf-worthy. Souter’s dissent starts on p. 31, the juicy part starts on p.33 at II-A.
10
posted on
04/28/2008 2:34:44 PM PDT
by
Huntress
(“When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.”--Tuco)
To: Huntress
How did te constitutional illiterates ate Supreme Court make such and obviously correct decision?
11
posted on
04/28/2008 3:23:16 PM PDT
by
TBP
To: Huntress
How did the constitutional illiterates ate Supreme Court make such and obviously correct decision?
12
posted on
04/28/2008 3:23:19 PM PDT
by
TBP
To: Huntress
OTOH, Justice Scalia’s concurrence is nothing short of brilliant, especially his last 2 pages.
13
posted on
04/28/2008 3:51:02 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(Who Would Montgomery Brewster Choose?)
To: Huntress; All
14
posted on
04/28/2008 6:55:39 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson