local

From the archive: This story is more than 5 years old.

Comments on

Supreme Court strikes down Az voter registration restrictions

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona cannot require documentation of U.S. citizenship from voters who submit a standard registration form under the federal "Motor Voter" law. The 7-2 decision was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
have your say   

8 comments on this story

1
1770 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 9:28 am
-3 +4

I guess Raul Grijalva’s job security factor just increased sigh.

The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas wrote.

This is absolutely correct, and what I’ve been saying all along. I’ve also been saying that perhaps we should have a Supreme Supreme Court because the Supreme Court got this one wrong.

But, now those who drink Obama’s kool aid want us all to prove we have health insurance. We don’t have to prove we’re a citizen, but we have to prove we have health insurance. Am I the only one who sees how absolutely insane this is?

2
556 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 9:36 am
-0 +4

@Bret Linden,

The Constitution’s elections clause also provides Congress the power to make changes to how states hold elections for federal offices, Scalia pointed out.

3
1770 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 9:43 am
-3 +2

@Dylan Smith

Read that. I’m still not convinced that states exercising power to “determine whether those qualifications are satisfied” violates what Scalia mentioned.

What I sincerely believe with with every fiber of my being is that there are forces that are deliberately wearing blinders on this issue. They just don’t want to know who is voting.

4
1770 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 10:25 am
-0 +1

Here Dylan, I’ll put it a different way…

I tell you “Hey, Dylan, go get me some ice cream”. You decide to carry out that task, but you also decide to check the health inspection certificate of the shop where you go before buying me the ice cream. Did I tell you to do that? No. But, you did that being concerned for my welfare and wanted to ensure that I didn’t get poisoned ice cream. If anything, that is you going above and beyond, adding value to the task.

5
556 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 10:35 am
-0 +4

@Bret Linden

If you’ve told me specifically that you do not want me to check for the certificate as issued by the Health Department, but to rely on the ice cream shop swearing in a legally binding manner that they hold such — and you have the constitutional power to compel me to not check, that’s your choice.

Congress voted to require states to accept the “Motor Voter” form. Don’t like the law? Get it changed.

The most conservative justice, one who proclaims his philosophy is to limit the power of government, wrote a pretty forceful opinion holding that Congress is on solid ground setting requirements for federal elections.

6
14 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 10:36 am
-2 +3

Brett, be assured that everyone sees how insane you are.

Seriously, if I have to show my driver’s license to drive, why *shouldn’t* I have to show a birth certificate in order to remain alive?

...which is an reductio ad absurdum extension the very same absurdum extension that you are making. Unfortuynately, you aren’t able to see how absurd your example is, because you don’t really know anything much beyond what yo have been told that you know.

7
1770 comments
Jun 17, 2013, 10:39 am
-1 +1

@Thatguy

Perhaps you’re right. Judging by your post I have also been horribly misinformed about the proper uses of spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

8
26 comments
Jun 18, 2013, 7:19 pm
-2 +1

It has turned out to be refreshingly difficult to try to substitute supression tactics for winning actual votes. It is one of the bright spots in our democracy.

It also seems that the more Republicans try to supress brown voting, the more minority voters show up. That’s another bright spot.

— 30 —

{/exp:weblog:entries}

Best in Internet Exploder