READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For July 1 and 2, 2007"
(4 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 7/2/2007 @ 8:53 pm PT...
"NJ: Cracking security his passion
Princeton professor has knack for exposing high-tech foibles"
Isn't this the second time that that Felten stealth pro-811 piece has gone round this week?
Sad, of course, since he's one of the scientists who took the trouble to lay out in his writings just why e-voting cannot be made to work with current technology...
... he knows better, and has said so... but now he's (apparently) yet another victim of the lie from Holt's office that "Holt II is the only election reform that will be allowed so you'd better support it or else!"
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 7/3/2007 @ 5:32 am PT...
There was an interesting 5-4 vote that republicans gave us which runs contra to Brown v Board of Education, according to The 4-Justice Dissent, written by Justice Breyer.
What is interesting is that Alito and Roberts said under oath, in congressional hearings, that they would follow the concept of stare decisis. Now we know those two perjured themselves.
If they were ever convicted for perjury they would be pardoned under the newly expressed "compassionate conservatism" a la Libby.
I expect them to protect the republican owned electronic voting machine companies too, should those CEO's ever get convicted.
The republican electronic voting machine company executives have nothing to fear now, post US v Libby.
We will have compassionate conservative voting machine companies for a long time now, it is the Stalinist way.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 7/3/2007 @ 5:40 am PT...
Post #2 continued ...
The dissent pointed out:
There is more: What has happened to stare decisis? The history of the plans before us, their educational importance, their highly limited use of race --- all these and more - - make clear that the compelling interest here is stronger than in, for example, Grutter, where we upheld a race conscious law school admissions program. The plans here are more narrowly tailored.
And what has happened to the cases that made very clear that in the context of K-12 public schools, this kind of program is constitutionally permissible? What has happened to Swann? To McDaniel? To Crawford? To Harris? To School Committee of Boston? To Seattle School D i s t . No. l?
The plurality's logic writes these cases out of the law. It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly undone so much .
(Breyer Dissent, emphasis added).
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 7/3/2007 @ 9:16 am PT...
Hey how bout that great "voter fraud" PR in the NJ homeless shelter article? But wait, how come no one even suspects the republican angle? Boy, they're good at that shit!