TOTAL BETRAYAL: Supreme Court Strikes Down Kansas Law Requiring Identification to Vote ... So much for the conservative judiciary.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com ^ | Published 13 hours ago on Dec 15, 2020 | By Shane Trejo

[Pajamajan]

"reported on the Supreme Court’s refusal to even consider the landmark Texas fraud case as the judiciary works in lockstep to enforce the color revolution coup to overthrow the Bill of Rights and Constitution:"

SMH. We are going to have to start all over again.

Our country has been FUBAR.

[skimbell]

No, the SC upheld the appeals court decision by vote.
The article then goes on to talk about the SC refusal to hear the Texas case last week.
Bottom line, the SC agreed with the appeals court and rejected the Kansas identification laws.
It's as F’dU as the headline makes it sound.

[newzjunkey]

The article is misleading. It was not about supplying an ID.

The question was whether you needed to supply a birth certificate or passport to provide citizenship when you voted. A state ID or voter ID or driver's license doesn't necessarily indicate citizenship although some say they're "not for federal identification" because they're not up to Real ID standards and, as I understand it, only citizens can get a "Real ID"

The reason Kansas was going the extra mile here is illegal aliens can get driver's licenses in many states, like CA, and perhaps GA.

[Enterprise]

"Yes, but you were not the president."

Well NOW you tell me!

[marktwain]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from requiring proof of identity, residence or citizenship.

Except for the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. I think the Voting Rights Act should be repealed as unneeded any more.

But under the Voting Rights Act, all sorts of restrictions have been placed on States ability to limit the franchise.

There was no reasons for SCOTUS to deny a hearing, other than it’s agreement with the result in the lower courts.

Except the little matter of time and ability.

The Supreme Court only decides to hear about 1 of 5 cases which are well presented to the Court.

[The MAGA-Deplorian]

If this is a conservative court, I want to see the definition of conservative.

[itsahoot]

Non citizens have DLs... what are they required to produce?

Themselves.

[zeugma]

With all due respect, your legal analysis is totally wrong. The refusal of SCOTUS to hear the case is its implicit concurrence in the Circuit Court decision. This case was in the Federal District Court and then the Federal Circuit Court. The law was struck down by a Federal judge ruling that it imposed undue interference with voters. There was no reasons for SCOTUS to deny a hearing, other than it’s agreement with the result in the lower courts.

Exactly. By refusing the case, the lower decision stands. That has the same effect as ratifying the lower decision without having to actually take the time to do so, or set precedent.

[FredSchwartz]

it wasn’t when you voted. It was when you registered.

[Mouton]

sorry, not should have been NOW.

We are now the Banana Daiquiri Republic

[SamuraiScot]

The issue is distinct from state laws that call for people to produce driver licenses or other photo IDs to cast a vote in person.”

Maybe some commenters should re-read this.

The net is the same. Drivers' licenses are faked all over the place. The other docs are more expensive to fake. That's why the Left and its judges can't abide them. Kansas should ignore the ruling entirely and proceed.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

>This is one of those times where Kansas should do it anyway. What could the Supreme Court do? They have no police.

BINGO!

Just like the states that have nullified federal drug and immigration laws even though the feds do have guns.

John C. Calhoun was right (even when he was wrong.)

If states don’t have to follow legislated law, why should they follow judge-made law?