Only one Supreme Court Justice seemed keen on overturning Indiana's voter identification law, Los Angeles Times reporter David Savage noted in a January 9 article at latimes.com. That would be liberal Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But while Savage noted that "conservatives [were] leading the way," in questioning the validity of the Indiana Democrats' complaint about the law, he failed to note Ginsburg's ideological leanings. Nor did he suggest she's out on a far-left limb since none of other liberal colleagues shared her concerns:
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court, hearing arguments in a partisan election-law dispute, gave no hint today that it would strike down the nation's strictest voter identification law.
Democrats in Indiana challenged the law as unconstitutional, saying the Republican-backed measure would deter thousands of poor, minority and elderly voters from casting ballots. Registered voters in Indiana without a valid driver's license or passport would not have their ballots counted.
But the justices, with the conservatives leading the way, said the Democrats had failed to prove the measure would have much impact.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy characterized the law as posing only "a minor inconvenience" to a small percentage of voters. "You want us to invalidate a statute" on that basis? he asked Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith, representing the Indiana Democrats.
[...]
Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Indiana requirement was unfair and unconstitutional. People who are "indigent" are not likely to have a valid driver's license, and they will not be able to go to a county courthouse to get an ID card from the state. This has obvious political consequences, she added.
Of course Ginsburg is not the only liberal on the court, but the fact that she was the only liberal justice to strongly question the Indiana law might suggest that she's on the fringe left of this issue even among her liberal peers.
Just don't expect that analysis to find space in the Los Angeles Times.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I was going to try and
January 9, 2008 - 18:19 ET by SMGalbraithI was going to try and offer a defense for Savage by arguing that his liberal label for Ginsburg may have been redacted by his editors.
But, Savage does this all the time.
My client is guilty.
Guess that indigent part
January 9, 2008 - 18:23 ET by Dan The Man 2Guess that indigent part makes it real hell for them to buy liquor or cigarettes since in most states there is an age requirement and you by law need to show ID to prove your age. In Texas most stores I know of ask for ID no matter what. And then comes ID for when the law stops and questions you. I can't think of many people who can get by without any ID if they want to do something adult.
I can only close with the Monty Python gag in mind "Bring out your dead."
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The Word of the Day is 'Change'
January 9, 2008 - 20:33 ET by ClarinetAndrewChange all the polling place from police stations, schools, the local YMCA, etc. to liquor stores and bars.
A two drink minimum to vote!
Skoll!
Dutton Peabody: [during
January 9, 2008 - 23:44 ET by JoeBobDutton Peabody: [during voting for the territorial convention] I'll have the usual, Jack.
Jack, Barman: The bar is closed, Mister Editor, during voting.
Dutton Peabody: Bar's closed?
Tom Doniphon: You can blame your lawyer friend. He says that's one of the "Fundamental laws of democracy." No exception.
Dutton Peabody: No exceptions for the working press? Why, that's carrying democracy much too far!
- The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Great Movie The Man Who
January 10, 2008 - 18:03 ET by Dan The Man 2Great Movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence the combination of the Duke and Jimmie along with Lee Marvin was chemistry.
Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend. I guess that the Libs took that one to heart.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Savage doesn't think Ginsburg is liberal......just caring
January 9, 2008 - 18:31 ET by Lame CherryI know it is News in Newsbusters, but I was more interested in Ginsburg's completely idiotic reasoning for not having an ID when someone who cared about such things should have been making the arguement that the ID's cost might keep people from AFFORDING THEM.
ALL communities now have a form of public transportation so that blows Ginsburg's access to the county court house. If one is infirmed, a doctor's signature on a letter explaining the problem to the state along with a signature and photograph should suffice for a valid ID to be issued.
Ginsburg is typical liberal with allot of money and never equating what real people deal with. It is the endless drain on tax this to some garbage like 5 to 20 bucks for a piece of plastic with a picture that costs 15 cents to make and has to be renewed is the problem.
Valid ID's should be a cost picked up by the government if they are going to require them for voter ID......and the cost should come from Congress and every federal employee's paycheck not including the military.
That would end all these mandates and Ginsburg not being intelligent enough to make a correct arguement.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I hate to sound callous...no, wait I don't...
January 9, 2008 - 18:56 ET by UndercoverConservativeBut as a member of an organization who sees every frikken day how "welfare politics" works, how people who contribute only a net *defecit* in city/county/state finances are the most powerful voting bloc (over even the unions) and want to have a voice in how the government spends tax money. Which means, invariably, they vote for whatever gets *more* tax money spent on *themselves*.
Not to mention defecits caused elsewhere that are difficult to quantify since no one seems to be allowed to ask or document the "welfare or not" status of criminals, delinquent/disruptive schoolchildren, and career "protestors".
So I posit the following-is something that keeps the historically, multi-generationally criminal, poor, and/or indigent necessarily a bad thing for the rest of society? Or is selfishness of the minority always to trump the benefit of everyone else, in some sort of political/economic apartheid?
-especially since getting a driver's license/state ID card is less than two bottles of "Wild Turkey" or one Xbox game or tickets to a Raider's game.
I think it is funny that
January 9, 2008 - 18:56 ET by Free ThinkerI think it is funny that Justice Kennedy is implied to be a conservative.
Recuse me?
January 9, 2008 - 19:14 ET by PrieblesRuthie should have correctly been identified as "a former ACLU attorney and current card-carrying member"..."who has never recused herself from a case brought by her former employer"
Not as funny as the
January 9, 2008 - 22:51 ET by JerNot as funny as the implication that the recently retired Sandra Day O'Connor was a liberal.
Jer
Why is it...
January 9, 2008 - 19:24 ET by c5thenThat conservatives have no problem with that characterization or label and some even wear it as a badge of honor, yet liberals treat the word "liberal" as if it's an epithet and go through mental gymnastics to avoid using it? Are they ashamed of their views?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Labelists don't like to be labeled
January 9, 2008 - 20:39 ET by PSPCplLiberals love to put the rest of us into near little boxes by giving us neat little labels: Conservatives, Right Wingers, Fascists, Homophobes, Theocrats, for example. They fully understand the psychological power of those labels subtle or gross. That is why they hate it when return the favor. I don't believe we do it strongly enough. Communist and Socialist are what we should be putting out there.
Unfortunately, the
January 9, 2008 - 23:18 ET by JerUnfortunately, the reason that the term "liberal" has to some degree degenerated into an epithet is the long-running campaign by conservative Republicans to make it so...a campaign which has been relatively successful.
I admire Reagan, but I believe he popularized references to the "L-Word" instead of "liberal", as if saying the latter were uttering a profanity. And for several decades now, if a Republican truly wants to tarnish his opponent in a campaign ad [especially in the South], an announcer in a low, guttural, growling voice will menacingly pronounce the Democratic candidate a "Teddy Kennedy li..burr..all". It even makes me shudder.
On the other hand, in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. a lot of mainstream Republicans would fall all over themselves to make sure the public understood they were liberals.
Jer
What is surpremely funny is
January 10, 2008 - 18:07 ET by Dan The Man 2What is surpremely funny is how you really don't understand. It is a fact and when can a fact be a slur? Answer only in a leftists mind.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Please tell me, Dan,
January 10, 2008 - 18:13 ET by JerPlease tell me, Dan, what it is I "really don't understand".
Jer
Simple: "liberal" is too far
January 9, 2008 - 19:28 ET by EdhenrySimple: "liberal" is too far right of a label for Ruth.
Well, blame Republican
January 9, 2008 - 23:27 ET by JerWell, blame Republican Senator Arlen Specter. He reportedly is the one who pushed for Ginsburg [she was not Clinton's first choice].
Jer
Voter ID Law - What partisan dispute?
January 9, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Gary HallWell actually right off the bat, Savage has it wrong:
It's not a partisan dispute:
77-80% support photo voter id laws -- partisan indeed everyone supports it but the press.
I don't believe that we'll be seeing the media running right out and conducting a straight question on this issue to voters - the best we will probably
Time's distorted journalism
January 9, 2008 - 20:32 ET by needleIt was a good occasion to canceled my Time subscription when
they labeled Ginsburg a moderate while trying to influence public opinion with
distorted “journalism” during the Roberts confirmation hearings a few years ago.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat
Ginsburg is a disgrace to her profession
January 9, 2008 - 20:55 ET by SupermanA judge is supposed to be a fair and impartial decider of court cases. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg is always making decisions based on her liberal ideology. It's wrong and it hurts the country.
People who are "indigent"
January 9, 2008 - 20:55 ET by Jack BauerPeople who are "indigent" are not likely to have a valid driver's license, and they will not be able to go to a county courthouse to get an ID card from the state.
My dictionary defines indigent as... So poor the person lacks even the basic necessities.
Let me posit this. If a person cannot get to a courthouse, how are they going to get to a voting booth?
And if the answer is: well the political party can arrange it. Then well, they can also arrange to help the person get an identity card.
And in a world where at least two TVs are considered a necessity, but a newspaper is not, how are those who lack a TV going to have any idea they need to vote anyway?
Maybe Justice Ginsburg would propose that the state has a DUTY to provide indigent folks the basic nesessity of any electoral process in the 21st century: namely, a television.
International laws
January 9, 2008 - 21:05 ET by KC BeachDidn't Ginsburg once proudly state she looks at the laws in other countries when deciding cases? That should be enough for Congress to remove her from the bench.
KC -- Article 3.
January 9, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Jack BauerKC --
Article 3. Section 1. of the U.S. Constitution states
Mmmm, what classes as "good" behavior and what would be defined as being outside that standard?
Now I'm sure I've read of very rare cases of inferior court judges being impeached..
However...Article 2. Section 4.
Not sure if the judiciary comes under the term "civil" Officers.
Maybe someone knows the answers here?
Here is a link from the
January 9, 2008 - 22:41 ET by contraryHere is a link from the Legal Information Instititute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm
Judges would be considered "civil officers" for the purposes of this article, but not the Legislature. Perhaps they are not civil enough.
Unreal
January 9, 2008 - 22:13 ET by PawpawNHey, if they're so bad they can't go get ID, then how do they get to polling places!
I believe it was Georgia
January 9, 2008 - 23:17 ET by Gary P JacksonI believe it was Georgia that was tinkering with a voter ID law. Everyone raised holy hell. Georgia even said they would send someone to the person's home and the GIVE them a photo ID. That's right, GIVE, as in FREE! And they were delivering it!
Evidently, that wasn't good enough for the dims. Don't think the law was passed.