The Catholic-majority Supreme Court has no respect for nuns. That's the new media meme about a recent Supreme Court ruling upholding an Indiana voter ID law. That very same law, the media would have us believe, "barred" or "turned away" from voting 12 nuns in South Bend on the Hoosier State's May 6 primary. Of course as a simple read of the Indiana Secretary of State's Web site shows, that's utter nun-sense. but Time's Karen Tumulty has picked up on it twice over at that magazine's Swampland blog.
This from a post yesterday informing readers of a news conference to be held today at 1 p.m. EDT:
Surely, our majority-Catholic Supreme Court should have known better than to get on the wrong side of the Sisters. As we wrote earlier, the first victims of the new ruling on Voter ID were elderly nuns in Indiana. This just in, in my emailbox: The nuns of Missouri rap the Supreme Court's knuckles with a great big ruler:
Nun of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary comments on Voter ID disenfranchisement
WHO: Missourians for Fair Elections
WHAT: Press Conference on the impact of legislation to
require government-issued photo ID to voteWHEN: 1:00 PM, Thursday, May 8, 2008
WHERE: League of Women Voters, 8706 Manchester, Jefferson City, MO 63144
Of course, as we noted and as the AP initially reported, these nuns are victims of nothing more than their own refusal to cast provisional ballots. Indeed, Tumulty's May 6 blog post excerpted from an AP story that notes that the nuns could have voted with provisional ballots.
But why let the facts get in the way of a liberal media meme?
Read our previous NewsBusters coverage of the media's misreporting on the South Bend nuns here and here.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Our favorite CAIR
May 8, 2008 - 11:50 ET by mattmOur favorite CAIR sponsored congressman Keith Ellison is complaining about the ruling based on the idea that it's designed to prevent poor people and minorities from voting - a la the literacy test requirement in the Jim Crow (Democrat) South.
Problem is, this law will only prevent people from voting who have no right to vote - i.e. illegal aliens, convicted felons, precinct-hoppers and dead people.
This is why Democrats hate vote fraud prevention - it wipes out a significant portion of their voter base.
Set Up Job
May 8, 2008 - 11:54 ET by allanfThe Supreme Court in the Indiana case said the plaintiffs had not produced a victims.
So now we see the seach for victims. In this instance, the good sisters were no doubt looking to create an incident. One of the tenants of the Courts ruling was that getting a government issued identification card is not burdensome, and few people are denied the right to vote.
The good sisters and their publisists aim to change that perception.
In a sense the law did
May 8, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Dan The Man 2In a sense the law did catch the nuns and possibly discriminated against them. They were at fault for not haviong the proper ID, preparing in advance for what came. They did not cast a provisional ballot because it seems they would have difficulty, hard to believe, coming back within the 10 days.
All in all the nuns should have forseen the difficulties or cast the ballots and gotten a ride back to prove who they were. Im pretty sure that they could have gotten a ride back if they were determined to do so. If God wills it then it will be, perhaps they forgot that with God anything is possible.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
A provisional ballot is a
May 8, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Ken ShepherdA provisional ballot is a ballot all the same. The only difference is to make the vote count you later have to certify you are who you say you are. But as we all know, in most every election, by the next morning the margin of victory is so large that the tiny amount of provisional ballots matters not a bit to changing the outcome.
That's why it's nonsense to say they didn't cast a provisional ballot due to being unable to, in the next 10 days, visit a DMV office and verify their identity.
Ten days is adequate time to do so, but regardless, they wouldn't NEED to because the outcome is such that their individual votes don't matter to changing the outcome.
Ken Im all for teh law and
May 8, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Dan The Man 2Ken Im all for teh law and believe the nuns were at fault. That said I was looking at their circumstance, at leat as relayed by the article. They were not in the best of health in a nuesing home condition and they might not have been able to return in suffient time. Consider if your entire life were at the mercy of others. This may not be the case but if it was, they might be reluctant to vote once and then in their eyes vote again.
And these are penguins, old ones at that.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It is my understanding that
May 8, 2008 - 12:12 ET by bassndudeIt is my understanding that Indiana would provide an ID for free, for those citizens that did not have one. It is the sisters fault. No one singled them out, they just failed to go get the free ID, and now it is a poor me syndrome. Incompetence is no excuse. Much like ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Since the Supreme Court
May 8, 2008 - 13:55 ET by ckc1227Since the Supreme Court ruling came so close to primary day, it probably would have been a good idea to wave the requirement for 30-60 days. Having said that, these ladies were told they would have to have proper ID, yet they came anyway knowing that they didn't. One lady even said she wasn't interested in getting ID, though, at 98, I really can't blame her. The last place I want to hang out when I'm 98 is the DMV, lol.
Even J Carter supported Voter ID law
May 8, 2008 - 14:42 ET by Gary HallEven Jimmy Carter supported Voter ID law. We can expect that the MSM will never mention that little fact, in their broad never ending effort to push their narrow and selfish agenda.
John Fund (2006) summarized it here:
If Jimmy Carter was for it,
May 8, 2008 - 14:55 ET by JerIf Jimmy Carter was for it, that's reason enough to be against it.
Jer
Jer.. funny. I just had the same conversation..
May 8, 2008 - 15:56 ET by Gary HallJer.. funny. I just had the same conversation..(private) with a certain columnist, on a different issue. Noting that Jimmy Carter was also strongly angered and outspoken against Clinton's unauthorized bombing of civilians and civilian targets in Kosovo, he said "Knowing that Carter and Mandela were against the Kosovo operation makes me rethink my own opposition!"
What remains highly visible here in both cases is the media's bias. If Carter (or any other notable D) had spoke out opposed to the voter ID law, then they'd all be clamoring to get him on their show to talk about it and to smear the "right-wingers," but since he supports what they don't support, his voice will be censored. Same for Kosovo. He and Mandela spoke out - censored. When they speak out against Bush, they are fought over by the media. When Bill Clinton (and others) has spoken out (and he has) and supported Bush on Iraq and other issues - censored. When they speak out against Bush on Iraq - their voices can't be projected enough to satisfy the media. When R's of note speak out against Bush - they become MSM stars overnight.
There is no end in sight to this game. (;~> gary