Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court Deals Blow To GOP Suppression Tactic (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  can this ruling (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eman, drmah

    nullify Florida's ID voter rules? We need all the help we can get down here.+

    -7.38, -5.23 The wait is over. Sen. Obama, walk into your season. It's your time.

    by CocoaLove on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM PDT

    •  i'd think it sets a precedent. n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mwjeepster, Eman, drmah, beltane

      "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach." - Upton Sinclair

      by kathleen518 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:25:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marie, Marcus Graly, Dexter

      If it was decided on basis of standing they never got to the merits, which would have the precedential value.

      Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

      by Dartagnan on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, the issue of standing (0+ / 0-)

        is a matter of merit isn't it? I mean, who has standing is not just a procedural issue, especially in a case like this. I understand that they didn't rule on the content of whether she had to use either SSA or OH BMV to determine whether registration was valid. But this is more than "just a technicality" IMHO...'course I never liked that phrase anyway.

        How the hell can the 4th Amendment be a "technicality"?

        Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        by hopeful on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The ruling (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LB in NC, Dartagnan, Allogenes

          is only about whether a private entity (in this case, the GOP) can sue based on HAVA.  The only thing the court said was that they can't sue.

          Heckuva job McSamie!

          by Dexter on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly; it has precedential value (0+ / 0-)

            if this same situation recurs, with the GOP suing to force the Sec of State or some other official to do or not do something.
            If the official him/herself were to take an action we didn't like and we tried to sue, the precedent would be against us.
            And if some defeated GOP candidate sues on Nov 5 on the grounds that the Sec of State allowed people to vote illegally, that would be a different case.
            This is actually an example of "judicial conservatism" in the true sense, which is not necessarily related to "political conservatism" in any direct way. Allowing the suit would be just the sort of "judicial activism" conservatives rail against - unwarranted interference with the actions of an elected branch of government.

            When civilizations clash, barbarism wins.

            by Allogenes on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 04:19:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Why would it do that? (0+ / 0-)

      Ohio's ID rules are firmly in place. What is unusual about Florida's?

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14:

      by anastasia p on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site