Supreme Court makes Huge Decision That May Flip a Key Senate Race

[Ransom]

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/supreme-c...kota-voter-id/

The United States Supreme Court made a ruling on Tuesday that will allow a North Dakota law that requires voters to produce government ID that has a current residential street address when casting ballots, to take effect.

As pointed out. Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is an utter catastrophe for Democrats...….

The notion of Voter ID’s is something Democrats and Republicans have sparred over for a long time, however as seen in the 2016 election, Democrats have shunted the idea vocally. That same vocal outcry from 2016 has set in as a clear platform for many Democrats running for or currently holding office.
As reported by The Daily Caller, The case made it’s way to the Supreme Court when a group of American Indians challenged the residential street address requirement, arguing that it imposes “impossible and severe burdens on the franchise for Native American voters.” A federal judge agreed and prohibited the law.
With that ruling the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted that order. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to restore the injunction.

…..of the 1st f'n magnitude.

[Hoosier8]

Just another state with voter ID. Lots of states have voter ID approved by SCOTUS.

Whats the problem?

[Tahuyaman]

There’s no logical explanation as to why anyone would oppose voter ID laws.

[Hoosier8]

From the OP article:

The premise of Voter ID’s makes sense to most and could seemingly put an end to voter fraud, non citizens casting ballots and a whole slew of other problems, however as we have seen countless times Democrats want no part of it. Begging the question, Why?

[Tahuyaman]

From the OP article:

The premise of Voter ID’s makes sense to most and could seemingly put an end to voter fraud, non citizens casting ballots and a whole slew of other problems, however as we have seen countless times Democrats want no part of it. Begging the question, Why?

Why? I hope that’s not a serious question.

[ripmeister]

I'd be all in for voter IDs as long as they are provided at no cost and there are plenty of centers such that transportation issues are not an impediment to getting one.

[midcan5]

Kavanaugh and the other four stooges simply demonstrate the Scotus is about political power and not law. It is about power over the people not for the people. I'm not sure why anyone who has read its history would think the court a good thing for Americans, its history demonstrates the opposite. The trick though was to convince the republican and conservative base their values were under attack. Once you do that the snowflakes vote against their own values. Kinda fascinating use of propaganda don't you think?

'Voter ID ruling should suppress the votes of Native Americans, just as the right wing on the Court intends.'


https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/supr...s-republicans/


"What Does the Constitution Actually Say About Voting Rights?"


https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rights/278782/


"The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. ... These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870)"

[hanger4]

I'd be all in for voter IDs as long as they are provided at no cost and there are plenty of centers such that transportation issues are not an impediment to getting one.

I know of of know state that sells ID to those that can not afford one. I sure hope those "centers" provide transportation to the grocery store, food a hell of a lot more important than voting twice every couple of years.

[Tahuyaman]

Kavanaugh and the other four stooges simply demonstrate the Scotus is about political power and not law. It is about power over the people not for the people. I'm not sure why anyone who has read its history would think the court a good thing for Americans, its history demonstrates the opposite. The trick though was to convince the republican and conservative base their values were under attack. Once you do that the snowflakes vote against their own values. Kinda fascinating use of propaganda don't you think?

'Voter ID ruling should suppress the votes of Native Americans, just as the right wing on the Court intends.'


https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/supr...s-republicans/


"What Does the Constitution Actually Say About Voting Rights?"


https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rights/278782/


"The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. ... These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870)"

Lol.

[Hoosier8]

Kavanaugh and the other four stooges simply demonstrate the Scotus is about political power and not law. It is about power over the people not for the people. I'm not sure why anyone who has read its history would think the court a good thing for Americans, its history demonstrates the opposite. The trick though was to convince the republican and conservative base their values were under attack. Once you do that the snowflakes vote against their own values. Kinda fascinating use of propaganda don't you think?

'Voter ID ruling should suppress the votes of Native Americans, just as the right wing on the Court intends.'


https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/supr...s-republicans/


"What Does the Constitution Actually Say About Voting Rights?"


https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rights/278782/


"The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. ... These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following: "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870)"

Funny post since the decision has nothing to do with it.