7-2 was also the margin for the vote that ended Global Warming Boy's attempted theft of the 2000 Presidential Election. The second SCOTUS ruling that day, the 5-4 one, only dealt with the remedy.

Yet we never ever hear about the 7-2 2000 SCOTUS ruling. We only hear about the 5-4 one.

Funny thing, though. If SCOTUS had sided with Gore, he would have been the only President in history to be "appointed" by TWO Supreme Courts.

In the Dem controlled areas like Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. voter ID will be enforced as rigorously as the Mexican border or as watchful as a Sanctuary City.  Don't count your chickens before they are hatched.  What the law says and what a Dem enforces is strictly a matter of descretion based on a political calculation.  And then there's the absentee ballots, no ID required at all.  There is a  reason why Philadelphia has more people who vote than adults counted as living there by the Census Bureau.

 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.  

another example: From personal experience, I know that Wal-Mart requires a photo ID when making a return. Does their policy "disenfranchise" the poor, minority and elderly?

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

The ruling is not so clean cut as the 6-3 majority might suggest.  The actual majority opinion is divided into two 3 vote blocks.  Justices Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy joined to write the majority opinion.   A second supporting opinion was written by Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas.   A dissenting opinion was written by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.  A second dissenting opinion was written by Justice Breyer. The term, splintered, is not unreasonable.

The dissent is interesting.  Breyer dissented because he felt the Inidana law was too restrcitive and held up Georgia and Florida !?! as examples of successful less restrictive ID laws.   Thiose two liberal vermin, Souter and Ginsberg had this to say: 

"Indiana has adopted one of the most restrictive photoidentification requirements in the country. The State recognizes that tens of thousands of qualified voters lackthe necessary federally issued or state-issued identification, but it insists on implementing the requirement immediately, without allowing a transition period for targeted efforts to distribute the required identification to individuals who need it. The State hardly even tries toexplain its decision to force indigents or religious objectorsto travel all the way to their county seats every time theywish to vote, and if there is any waning of confidence in the administration of elections it probably owes more to the State’s violation of federal election law than to any imposters at the polling places. It is impossible to say, on this record, that the State’s interest in adopting its signally inhibiting photo identification requirement has beenshown to outweigh the serious burdens it imposes on the right to vote. "

Wouldn't it have been nice if the writer had used the phrase "American-inspired voter ID laws"?

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944

You are 100% correct, Chris. This is exactly the point I made the other day, though not nearly as eloquently as you just did, in response to another discussion in which it was claimed an article was not biased because the statements made were factual.

V/R
Clyde 

"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC