We’re getting really tired of picking on Democrats. But with clueless Senators like Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, it seems like we continue to have little choice.
Picking up from where we left off yesterday regarding this morning’s vote in the Senate Rules Committee on whether or not to send a recommendation for approval on the FEC nomination of the DOJ’s GOP “Voter Fraud” flim-flam operative, Hans von Spakovsky, to the full Senate. Again we again defer to Paul Kiel’s TPMMuckraker report that the Democrats, thanks to a defection from Nelson, were unable to reject the nomination outright and will have to pick up the fight on the Senate floor, where the GOP (unlike the Dems) will march in lockstep to get what they want. Even from the minority…
Next up is a vote before the full Senate, and how that vote will occur will be determined by negotiations between the Democratic and Republican leadership. Republicans are likely to seek a vote on all four nominees at once and have threatened to spike all the Democratic nominees if Democrats seek to block von Spakovsky.
Feinstein only said during the hearing that a Democrat had advised her that he would support von Spakovsky’s nomination. In comments to reporters after the hearing, she identified that senator as Sen. Nelson.
More on the evil von Spakovsky here.
More details on today’s negotiations here, including Feinstein’s statement: “I don’t feel that this is an unbiased individual.” Minority Leader Mitch McConnnel’s (R-KY) hardball in return: “None of these nominees will move across the Senate unless they move together.”
In related your-right-to-legally-cast-a-vote-is-under-attack news, as Arlen Parsa covered for us in a bit more detail earlier, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Democratic challenge to Indiana’s voter disenfranchising Photo ID law.
The very smart Election Law Blog’s Rick Hasen sees this as good news for opponents of such laws, but we’ve got our money on a 5 to 4 ruling in favor of the GOP law, created (by Thor Hearne and Friends) in the hopes of keeping Democratic voters from being able to cast their votes on Election Day. We hope we’re wrong, but Bush’s Supreme Court hasn’t given us much to be hopeful about.
You’ll note the supporters of the restrictive, Jim Crow-type legislation have been unable to offer a single case of a voter in the state voting as someone else at the polling place.
Perhaps Sen. Ben Nelson would like to issue a resolution in support of such laws? Idiot.
I’m not getting tired of picking on the Democrats. Any one else?
You know what, fuck the democrats too, those spineless assholes. They’re all the same after all.
Seems there are a lot of senators and reps claiming to be Dem, but voting with the R’s. McCaskill and Skelton from MO are just 2. They seem to forget who puts them in office and who keeps them there.
There are like 22 of these DINOs in DC. The grassroots orgs need to find a way to get rid of these leeches.
RE: Senator Nelson:
Gore Vidal once said: “By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he’s been bought ten times over”.
Apparently, the line is being drawn somewhat lower than Mr. Vidal previously calculated.
Limerick time….
It’s beginning to get on my nerves
How the Dems acquiesce to these pervs
How much MORE dark & sinister
Before they administer
The justice these criminals deserve?!
Is there not a single Democrat willing to filibuster this vote-stealing scam artist? If all 4 nominees go down in flames, so be it. The FEC is toothless anyway. Isn’t it better to keep it undermanned than to allow a sworn enemy of voting rights to be given a seat at the table, just in time to help the GOP steal the 2008 election?
The Rethuglicans filibuster everything. Who on our side will stand up for voting rights? Is there no one? Is the situation that hopeless? 50 Democrats and not one with a spine???
Brad wrote: “You’ll note the supporters of the restrictive, Jim Crow-type legislation have been unable to offer a single case of a voter in the state voting as someone else at the polling place.”
Notice the dubious choice of words, “…. a voter in the state voting…..”.
The plaintiffs made the argument that OTHER STATES suffer from these problems. Why shouldn’t Indiana, and other state, take action to protect their voter BEFORE it becomes a problem?
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
“The plaintiffs argue that while vote fraud by impersonation may be a problem in other states, it is not in Indiana, because there are no reports of such fraud in that state.”
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Rokita-Judgment.pdf
Now, let’s turn this around, i.e. does such a law deter citizens from casting a ballot?
Again from Crawford:
“But there is something remarkable about the plaintiffs considered as a whole, which will provide the transition to our consideration of the merits. There is not a single plaintiff who intends not to vote because of the new law—that is, who would vote were it not for the law.”
On one hand, we have the plaintiff admitting that such crimes do happen, but maybe not in Indiana. On the other hand, the plaintiffs could not show where single voter in Indiana was deterred from casting a ballot because of this law. They could not find such a person to join the suit.
IF you are on the side of fair elections, I can’t see how you can be against this law. The plaintiffs ADMIT that these crimes do take place, thus it would be prudent for Indiana to take steps to make sure this does not happen in their state.