A really bad ruling from the Supreme Court

From the Associated Press:

Court: Ariz. citizenship proof law illegal
States can't demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections unless they get federal or court approval to do so, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision complicating efforts in Arizona and other states to bar voting by people who are in the country illegally.

The justices' 7-2 ruling closes the door on states independently changing the requirements for those using the voter-registration form produced under the federal "motor voter" registration law. They would need permission from a federally created panel, the Election Assistance Commission, or a federal court ruling overturning the commission's decision, to make tougher requirements stick.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the court's majority opinion, said federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself."

And the two dissenters:

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only two dissenters.

Definitly the two smartest Justices. Couple of things about this ruling -- it is unconstitutional - eg:

"All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the U.S. and the U.S. State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)

"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)

"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)

In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)

(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964) (For state elections) Taxes - (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))

"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971)

What the fuck is going on here?