Supreme Court "Messing With" The 2008 Election: Obama Supporters Excluded From Indiana Primary

The US Supreme Court has ruled in the State of Indiana, that it is legal for state governments to demand a valid photo I.D. before being allowed to vote. A great majority of recently registered Obama supporters are young and/or have never voted in their lives.

How many of these people can get a "Valid picture" I.D. before next weeks Indiana Democratic Primary? In the 1950's and 1960's the Supreme Court was a friend to those who were refused the right to vote or discouraged with fake "intelligence test" to qualify to vote. Now the Supreme Court is part of the problem and...


has learned nothing of their passed mistakes? Unless... their tampering and becoming the decision maker in the 2000 Presidential election was not a mistake. Has this "right' leaning court decided to make it it's purpose to dictate and greatly influence all future presidential elections.This rule was backed by Republicans and assailed by Democrats.

There were two opinions in the six-three majority, each signed by three justices, and the "lead opinion" written by John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the state presented "no evidence" that some Indianans were voting under others' names, but that neither was there "any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification," as the New York Times reports.

The Stevens opinion also said that while "all of the state's Republican legislators, and none of the Democrats, voted for the law in 2005," such "partisan motivation doesn't invalidate a law," Legal Times adds, especially when it has a valid goal like the reduction of voter fraud. The second majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, supported the Indiana law more emphatically, saying it was justified as "a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation." A

nd the third, dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter, criticized the law for placing what he called a "serious" and "deterring" burden on poorer or older voters who might be less likely to have the required ID.


Since Indiana's is one of the U.S.'s strictest voter-ID laws, the decision "is likely to end pending challenges to similar laws elsewhere, including Ohio and other states up for grabs in this year's general elections" and "could encourage other states to enact similar rules," The Wall Street Journal notes.

But the most immediate consequences will likely come a week from today, when Indiana holds a primary vote that, according to the Indianapolis Star, is "expected to set a record for turnout fueled by the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama." And it could pose problems for Mr. Obama, The Hill says, since the law's Democratic and civil rights-advocating critics have argued it will disproportionately affect the black and young first-time voters who have thus far made up two of his most important constituencies.

Thanks JOSEPH SCHUMAN for updating us on this story

Justice Clarence Thomas Doesn't Like Black People: Certainly Not OJ Simpson And Others Of His Elk!

The Supreme Court has rightfully threw out an African American man's murder conviction and death sentence on Wednesday, citing a Louisiana prosecutor's references to O.J. Simpson and the exclusion of Blacks from the jury. Of course black man in name only Clarence Thomas dissented. What do you mean you're not surprised!

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in a case reversing a capital conviction on grounds of racial bias. The 7-2 ruling was a sharp rebuke of prosecutors and their use of pre-emptive challenges to keep blacks off the jury.

"The trial court committed clear error," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

In granting Allen Snyder a new trial, the high court's decision focused almost entirely on the exclusion of one potential juror, an African-American. But the case involved broader accusations of misconduct involving race.

In oral arguments in December, the justices also had tough words for the defense attorney and the trial judge overseeing the case. Snyder was convicted in what Alito called an "incredibly short trial." The trial lasted only 3 and ½ days from the beginning of jury selection to the verdict.

Snyder was sent to death row for the murder of his estranged wife's companion, Harold Wilson, outside New Orleans, Louisiana. Snyder used a knife to attack the couple as they sat in their car after a date. Mary Snyder was severely wounded in the attack but survived.

In remarks to reporters in the weeks before the trial, senior prosecutor Jim Williams repeatedly referred to it as "my O.J. Simpson case." He referred to Simpson again during jury selections, but promised to stop doing so after the defense raised objections. He did mention it again, however, in his closing argument.

While the Simpson remarks dominated oral arguments in December, Alito chose in Wednesday's ruling to focus on the fact that five African-Americans in the jury pool were struck by the prosecution.

Supreme Court precedent forbids race being used as the sole reason when issuing peremptory challenges."All the O.J. Simpson case does is put a little icing on the cake. The evidence is too powerful. It all points in one direction and that's intentional race discrimination. And if that happened, Allen Snyder is entitled to a new trial."

The case reflected a measure of frustration among the high court justices, who were handling it for a second time. The Louisiana Supreme Court allowed the initial conviction and death sentence to stand after being told by the U.S. Supreme Court to take another hard look at the fairness of the trial.

One black juror candidate -- Jeffrey Brooks, a student -- was excluded because he initially was worried that missing class would hurt his degree requirements. But a white candidate was kept on the panel, even though he had complained about having a sick wife and other pressing personal problems.

The white man was assured the trial would be speedy, and the black man's dean assured the court the student's class work would not be unduly affected. Nevertheless, the white man stayed on the jury; the black man was excluded.

Alito said the prosecution's reasons for excluding Brooks were "suspicious."

"The implausibility of this explanation is reinforced by the prosecutor's acceptance of white jurors who disclosed conflicting obligations that appear to have been at least as serious as Mr. Brooks'," he noted.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the majority for "paying lip service" and "second-guessing" the discretion of state trial courts. He was supported by Justice Antonin Scalia. The majority offered no explanation why it chose not to focus on the O.J. Simpson aspect in the decision.

Jefferson Parish is about 20 percent black, but African-Americans make up only 11 percent of jurors called in criminal cases, which Ruth Bader Ginsburg had pointed out is "almost half of what you'd expect." [CNN]

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Muslim Inmate After Quran Ends Up Missing During Prison Transfer!

Clarence Thomas Claims Prisoner Can't Sue After Quran Disappears

U.S. Justices said Tuesday that a Muslim inmate cannot sue the government over the disappearance of the prisoner's copies of the Quran and a prayer rug. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said the federal law the inmate relied on prohibits lawsuits against federal corrections officers.

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali says the missing books and rug reflect widespread harassment against Muslim inmates in federal, state and local prisons stemming from the Sept. 11terrorist attacks.

"Reports from all over the country have come in" on Muslims' religious property that "has been destroyed, confiscated, looted, lost, stolen or taken without cause," Ali said in the lawsuit he filed in federal court. Via MSNBC

SUPREME COURT PUTS BLACK FOLKS ON A TIMEOUT, STRIKES DOWN USING RACE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION

Justice Breyer's Dissent Says It All, "Never Have So Few Done So Much So Quickly."

The Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to school integration efforts today, ruling that the U.S. Constitution does not allow students to be assigned particular schools based on race, even when the goal is as lofty as campus diversity.

Correction, not campus diversity - but rather equal access to the more desirable public education "certain" communities afford their young people.

Never mind that a huge percentage of schools in urban areas have lower paid, non-credentialed teachers with higher rates of absenteeism.

Let's ignore the deplorable physical conditions and overcrowding at these campuses.

All that's important here is that White parents, ticked off because their children were turned away from their preferred schools simply because they were White, ultimately got their way.

The court's most conservative members, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, actually wanted to go further and ban all school district efforts at racial balancing. In Roberts' parrallel universe, these efforts violate the principle of a "color-blind'' Constitution.

The reality is, the constitution -- hell, the entire country -- is anything but colorblind.

According to a report by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Whites made up 58 percent of the nation's public school enrollment in 2003, but the average White student attended a school that was nearly 80 percent white.

African Americans accounted for 17 percent of all students, but the average Black student attended a school that was 53 percent Black. Latinos made up 19 percent of enrollment but attended schools that were typically 55 percent Latino.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration sided with the plaintiffs.

Allowing "the use of a racial classification to achieve a desired racial balance ... would remove the critical requirement that individuals be considered as individuals,'' Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued in court papers.

The Seattle system at the center of the case -- suspended since 2002, when it came under legal attack -- gave officials in the 46,000-student high school district a list of factors to consider when a school had more applicants than space.

The first factor was whether a student had a brother or sister at the school, and the second was whether the student's race would move the school closer to the district population of 40 percent white and 60 percent minority.

In Jefferson County, Kentucky, which includes Louisville, the 97,000-student district was under a court desegregation order until 2000.

To avoid resegregation, officials said, they established guidelines of between 15 and 50 percent African American enrollment at each school. Overall Black enrollment in the district is 36 percent.

The 5-4 decision came over five decades after the court unanimously outlawed racial segregation in public schools and declared that segregated schools are inherently unequal.

Dissenting justices said the ruling endangered the principles of racial equality established in the landmark 1954 ruling, Brown vs. Board of Education.

"The last half-century has witnessed great strides toward racial equality, but we have not yet realized the promise of Brown,'' said Justice Stephen Breyer. "To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown.

Today's decision to strike down race-conscious enrollment systems in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky will impact similar to programs in hundreds of school districts nationwide.

"This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret."

Honestly, this unfortunate ruling is the best thing that could happen to us.

Black people are being told -- straight out -- that America is done. The country is over trying to right the wrongs of slavery, Jim Crow, environmental racism, housing discrimination, and a litany of other "color-blind" activities that folks in both the public and private sector - and their ancestors - have benefitted from.

Brothers and sisters, you better wake-up and handle your business. It's a new day family!

San Francisco Gate

Women, Blacks & Other Minorities Top Bush's Supreme Court Short List

The White House is developing a short list of possible Supreme Court nominees so President Bush can move quick if a justice retires when the Court breaks for its summer recess in June.

Some of Bush's political advisers believe he would be better off tapping a strong conservative who would rally the base -- especially a female or minority nominee with a compelling life story who would be difficult for moderate Senate Democrats to oppose.

In that camp are federal appeals court Judges Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Although both were filibustered by Senate Democrats after Bush nominated them as appellate judges, eventually they were confirmed.

What's interesting about Janice Rogers Brown, however, is that the former California Supreme Court Justice is an extremely conservative who, for better or for worse, would definitely make the cover of Essence as the first African-American female to serve on the highest court in the nation.