Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (62623)	9/25/2007 11:25:05 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 90947

Maybe, but its not like it would be extremely expensive to produce that much coke it was a legal product. I'm against hard drug use (and not really a big fan of much "soft drug" use either), and against the government telling you, you can't do it. It "war on drugs" law enforcement had good results I might suppress my disagreement in principle with it, and just let the good results happen, but its been going on for decades, when are we going to get positive results?

To: longnshort who wrote (62623)	9/25/2007 4:27:58 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

Supreme Court to rule on voter ID laws FILE PHOTO OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT William Philpott / Reuters The United States Supreme Court is shown in this October 2, 2000 file photo. By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 8:25 AM PDT, September 25, 2007 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court set the stage today for an election-year clash over whether states can require voters to have a government-issued photo identification before they cast a ballot. The court's ruling could affect the outcome in close races in several states. The photo identification laws have been championed by Republicans as a means of preventing voter fraud. They say the required identification will screen out ineligible voters, including felons, illegal immigrants and non-residents. A state-issued driver's license meets the requirement. Democrats have opposed the requirement and argue that thousands of poor, elderly or disabled persons do not have a photo identification because they do not drive. They fear the rules are likely to dissuade an untold number of voters from casting ballots, and thereby might tip a close election. In addition, they say fraudulent voting is more likely among those who file absentee ballots by mail, and the voter identification rule usually does not extend to such voters. Photo identification laws have been adopted in several states, including Indiana, Georgia and Arizona, and they have been generally upheld. The issue has not only divided state legislators along partisan lines, but the same split has been apparent in the judicial rulings. The U.S. appeals court in Chicago upheld Indiana's law on 2-1 vote. Two Republican appointees made up the majority, while a Democratic appointee dissented. The Supreme Court agreed today to hear an appeal from Indiana Democrats who say the practical impact of the state's law will to deny the right to vote to thousands of legal voters. The high court will hear the case of Indiana Democratic Party vs. Rokita in January and issue a ruling by July. The decision will either clear the way for states to enforce their photo identification laws, or the requirement will be voided. david.savage@latimes.com latimes.com ======================================================================= Yeah. Right. Sure it will.