Don't you mean the Supreme Hussein-Acorn Court? Why do they hate our freedom?

Who knew democracy might prevail for once. It will be most amusing to listen to the gnashing of teeth and the wails of voter fraud when the dems take Ohio

Still, there are those Halliburton containment camps they could activate before the 4th.

I'm not a big fan of the Court's recent rulings on standing, but at least here's one case of "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

It would seem there was some merit to the effort. I'll bet they simply over-reached, trying to include things like a simple name misspelling as a record mismatch.

t's worth noting, however, that the high court did not rule on the merits of the Help America Vote Act with regard to requirements for verifying voter eligibility, but rather, ruled that the Ohio Republican Party lacked standing to bring the case.

Given how this Court has been dealing with the whole "standing" issue, I will bet that this ruling will be a bad thing in the long run as a precedent.

I wonder how quickly the Ohio GOP will find someone - anyone - who is a Republican and will get past the Court's "standing" blockage. I give them til Monday. I'm sure their lawyers are reading the tea leaves and entrails to find someone who's willing and able to do it.

Even if they find someone with "standing" they still have to start the process all over again. The clock is ticking and time is running out for these wankers.

This is only a temporary victory if the decision was based on a "lack of standing".

In fact, here in Georgia, a U.S. district judge just ruled that our Secretary of State could continue to disenfranchise voters with foreign sounding names (e.g. Jose Morales) because, the judge asserts, having to prove one’s citizenship to the county clerk over and over again is a "temporary and minor inconvenience". This judge also doesn't appear to believe that disenfranchising "a few individuals" will "diminish the public’s respect and confidence in the electoral process".

I'm still afraid.

Jennifer Brunner is one of our Leaders-In-Action for her commitment to progressive ideals. We are proud of her effort here and stand behind her.

This ruling is an important victory for newly-registered voters everywhere.

We are partnering up with RFK's No Voter Left Behind in Ohio and elsewhere to ensure that all vote are counted and that GOP voter scare and suppression tactics don't work this general election.

While I have no faith in the current court, it would seem reasonable that limiting their ruling to a 'standing' issue rather than the constitutionality of HAVA makes some sense. The nine 'guardians' of the Constitution would have to hear oral arguements on the law itself before they would rule on it. By ruling on standing only they avoid all the substantive issues.

This does beg the question of who has standing, and I bet the sheister Rethugs are working on that at this very moment. In any case it's doubtful that the court could sort this in any sort of timely way before the election, and I doubt that even this kangeroo court would delay the election because of this question. Well wait. They would delay the election in a 5-4 decision (assuming they could get Kennedy on their side) if they thought it would help McShame.

This is good, good news, at least for now. That is all.

Every instance of voter suppression has to taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. There is absolutely no excuse not to contest this all the way and lay it at the feet of those assholes in robes.

They screwed the country in 2000, but I'm not sure they have the stomach to do it in 2008 after what has transpired since then. At the very least, it will bring needed attention to issue and help grind out the clock.

Brunner for Senate 2010, anyone?

While I'm ecstatic about the ruling---it's always nice to see the GOP hoisted by its own petard while Dems plunge in the bayonet to the muzzle-hilt, giving it a good, sharp twist in the process---the Ohio GOP might, unfortunately, have their sought-after standing when it comes to certifying the vote---because they could---and quite likely, will---challenge the certification process that comes after the election.

Now if Jen Brunner plays this one smart, she'll have everything to certify the election "in situ." reading through our Revised Code, I think she could certify it on the grounds that the "time designated" for the process only stipulates the maximum allowed, and not the minimum. Initial tallies can be made on Election night---and there's nothing to stop official recounts from being done immediately after the initial counts are done---which could, at least in theory, put a certified final count in place before any GOP-friendly federal court even opens its doors on November 5....

This wasn't a standing decision - the Court said the plaintiffs showed insufficient likelihood of winning to justify a TRO (not the same as saying they have a rotten case, just that it's not good enough for the court to interfere in advance).

The Court wouldn't have said that if it had been a standing decision - it would have only said the plaintiffs fail to meet standing requirements, and not even mention whether the plaintiffs were likely to win or lose.

In fact, here in Georgia, Posted by: CJ

This is why we should give Georgia back to the Soviet Un, er, I mean Russia.

But Ohio voters can't be impartial, since their flag (pennant, whatever) has a big "O" on it! Keep them all from voting!

So...the Ohio Republicans are trying to make it harder for Joe the Plumber (whose name is spelled incorrectly on his voter registration) to vote? ;-)

Last anonymous poster: exactly what I was going to post!

I wonder when the mainstream media will update their Joe the Plumber lovefest with the little fact that the Republican voter role standards would keep him from voting in the first place?

Ohio is lucky that it has Brunner. Had it been Blackwell still, can you imagine him fighting all the way to the Supreme Court? Against something that the Repubs cooked up?