‘Strict constructionists” on the U.S. Supreme Court are concerned with what the Constitution actually says when interpreting constitutionality of laws, state laws in particular. Liberal judges on the U.S. Supreme Court (and liberal judges on other federal courts) are only concerned about protecting the Democrat Party and pushing their personal liberal agenda on the country.
The U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week on an Indiana law requiring photo identification in order to vote. This should be a ‘no-brainer’, and it was for the Justices but for different reasons.
Reports of the hearing say there was a ‘lively discussion’. The liberal Justices, who care not a whit about the Constitution, predictably expressed ‘concern’ for those likely expected to vote for Democrats; namely, (in their view) “the poor, elderly and minority voters”.
Who are the liberal Justices – one is Clinton appointee, and former General Counsel for the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsberg; another is the worst appointment by a Republican president, David Souter; a third is another Democrat Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer (famous for advocating the court consider as legal precedents court decisions in other countries like Zimbabwe); and finally John Paul Stevens, a liberal judicial icon who is the oldest Justice on the court and true to the government expansionist policies of Franklin Roosevelt.
Against this formidable and consistent array of judicial activists are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. Standing as the ‘swing vote’ on the court is Justice Kennedy. As incredible as it may seem, many decisions important to our freedom are in the hands of one man, Justice Kennedy, who has become more liberal with age, defying the premise that one gets more conservative with age. Very likely, how this case is decided, and with it the ability to suppress voter fraud, will be up to the vagary of Justice Kennedy.
Questions and comments at the hearing of the case are very insightful, and sometimes comic in their illogic. Paul Smith, a lawyer for the Democrat Party, told the court “the law is unconstitutional because it imposes an unfair burden, especially on the poor”. Why is this so, well, Smith says because a voter lacking an ID must go to a state office to get their free ID card. No mention was made that it doesn't seem burdensome for the poor to go to their mail boxes to get their welfare check or food stamps or, is some cases, go to a state office to get their unemployment checks.
Antonin Scalia wondered how come the Democrat Party was represented in this case since they were not an “aggrieved party” under the law and he repeatedly challenged the state Democrat Party’s standing to contest the law. Alito asked the Democrat Party lawyer if the Democrat position “was that the state can’t require any form of identification in order to vote"? Roberts pointed out that 99% of eligible voters have photo IDs.
News articles about the court hearing say that Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens were more “sympathetic” to the legal challenge. Does this surprise anyone?
One interesting exchange was when Stevens asked U. S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who was defending the Indiana law, that since the Indiana legislature passed the law on a party line vote, “Don’t you think that this law has an adverse impact on the Democrats”? Clement replied: ”If that was the intent, it backfired in 2006 when Republicans fared poorly in the statewide election”.
Democrats and ‘civil rights’ groups say that if the law is upheld, Republican legislatures in other states would adopt similar laws “that would make it harder for those people to vote in the name of addressing a nonexistent problem of voter impersonation”. Who are they kidding, Democrats everywhere have a proven record of fraudulent efforts to have people ineligible to vote hauled into voting precincts.
We can only hope that Justice Kennedy has the country in mind and not the Democrat Party when he casts his vote.