Scalia not siding with Alito is kind of strange.

Can't imagine him not agreeing with Fat Tony - who actually did something right for a change.

with it doesn't absolve Scalia of all of the other damage he has done. I would still call him dangerous.

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Thus the issue is what did Congress intent when Congress passed this law in 1993, and that is quite clear by the terms of the Statute.

In this case, Federal Law requires Federal Election Assistance Commission to develop a form to assist in Voting Registration. That form, while regulatory in nature, is required by Federal law and under that same Federal Law must be accepted by the States. That is enough for Scalia.

Please note, Scalia noted the Federal Statute permits Arizona to ask the Federal Election Commission to add the requirements Arizona requested and if it is denied again (It was denied by a 2-2 vote by the Commission previously, Arizona could file an appeal to Federal District Court and work its way up to the Supreme Court that way and the Court MAY rule Arizona's action are permitted by the Federal Statute and it was wrongful by the Commission to deny Arizona's request to add that to the Voter Registration Form. Given that is NOT the issue in this case, Arizona can NOT require what the Federal Election Commission has not approved on the Election Registration Form.

Here is the actual Opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

If a State thinks it is having issues with voter fraud the place to crack down is in the registration process and not at the polling place so these laws have always been the wrong solution to a perceived problem.

Interesting too that Thomas in Bush v Gore saw an equal protection issue with different standards on clear intent by different counties but here saw no such issues with different standards for voting by different States. It is intellectually indefensible.

Pennsylvania is trying similar voter suppression and I have been fighting with the poll workers the past two elections about showing an ID.

I hope Corbutt's illegal attempt to disenfranchise democrats will finally be sidelined by this decision.

What the Court has said is Federal Law requirements set by Federal Law can NOT be outdone by State law. By Federal Law, if a state wants increased regulations as to registration, it can ask permission of the Federal Election Commission, but only the Commission can increase any regulations as to actual restriction.

As to voter ID when someone actually votes, that was NOT at issue in this case. The law in question only covers voter registration NOT actually voting. Arizona was the state that tried to expand the restrictions as to voter registration, Pennsylvania has only put restrictions as to actually voting and that is covered by another Supreme Court Case that approved of such restrictions.

So the PA law is still considered to be constitutional then. Even though it is still tied up in the state courts. Damn.

"But it let stand the most controversial part — a requirement that police making traffic stops check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/17/19003391-supreme-court-strikes-down-arizona-law-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-to-vote?lite

I did not expect Scalia to vote against this.