Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge – and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented. The decision means that the law will be enforced without a legal cloud over it in the presidential primary election in Indiana on May 6. About half of the states have such laws.

And for those of you that missed it, Justice Scalia was on 60 Minutes last night. Here is the CBS link. Content warning..Lesley Stahl is just a dullard, so proceed with caution

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.

Back in business

I am late getting this posted:

In a ruling Wednesday, the court unanimously rejected the city’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The ruling deals a final blow to Proposition H, an initiative voters passed in November of 2005.

The ordinance would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in the city.

Only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes would have been exempted.

Did you happen to see unanimously rejected?

Stanley Kurtz asked that question today. It has come up because of a recent court action seeking to “strike down Michigan’s new, voter-passed, amendment barring so-called affirmative action.” Terry Pell digs into the facts that may have come out unintentionally:

But then suddenly Lawson pulled the plug on all this with an opinion in March that, whatever else it did, certainly ended the prospect of further discovery and a trial.

Lawson’s about-face was no accident. Pre-trial discovery was turning up evidence that the extensive use of racial preferences at Michigan universities was directly causing racial disparities in grades, majors, graduation and professional examination results. Far from helping the case for racial preferences, pre-trial discovery was undermining it.

Good news:

President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.

In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.

Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.

An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country’s consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

If true, this will be a victory for those that support the COTUS.

But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state’s right to maintain a “well-regulated militia,” not to give gun rights to individuals.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. “In my view, there is a general right to bear arms” that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to “keep and bear arms.” But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.

WASHINGTON - As federal judges order more reporters to disclose their confidential sources, news organizations are pinning their hopes on congressional passage of a media shield bill the Bush administration opposes as a threat to national security.

They should just look to the words of WaPo: Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits.

Got that? The WaPo seems to think that

The Second Amendment, while ensconced in the Bill of Rights among provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, is different. Words can be offensive; bullets can be lethal. Every right, no matter how precious, is subject to some limits. If the justices recognize an individual right, they can and should allow lawmakers maximum flexibility to enact reasonable regulation. In our view, that flexibility should include the District’s law, which is aimed at taking the most dangerous guns off the streets of what was once one of the nation’s most dangerous cities. Anything short of this would promote perverse ideological purity over the legitimate interests of lawmakers to protect public safety.

Vs

Guest post by Robert:

I’ve mentioned this on the blog a couple of times, but I don’t think anyone realizes the seriousness of the situation. This agreement allows the administration to deploy foreign troops on US soil without congressional approval:

U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

Two lesbians, married in Canada, living together in New York, want to divorce. What’s the problem? New York does not recognize gay marriage. The solution? Find yourself an activist judge:

“Donna M.” had argued her marriage to “Beth R.” should be declared void because New York doesn’t allow gay nuptials, but Drager disagreed.

“[T]his court’s decision [is] that out-of-state same-sex marriages are properly recognized under our law,” and therefore Beth R. can proceed with her divorce and custody action against mother of two Donna M., the ruling says.

Drager noted that there are only two exceptions where New York does not recognize an out-of-state marriage - if it is specifically named by the Legislature as prohibited or is “abhorrent to New York public policy.”

The Legislature hasn’t specifically outlawed out-of-state same-sex marriages, and “the abhorrence exception is so narrow that it has been applied only to marriages involving polygamy or incest,” the judge wrote.

UPDATED AND BUMPED: Voter cited by opponents of Indiana’s ID law registered in two states :

Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also

claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.

Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she¹s never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.

Subsequently, Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down……..
…..
I¹m confused’

Indiana requires the voters to show photo identification at their polling station prior to being given a ballot. We have all heard the tired excuses for why this is bad: Democrats, view voter ID as a modern-day poll tax that disproportionately affect poor, minority and elderly voters — who tend to back Democrats. Keep in mind that the poor will be allowed to get a pictured ID for free, regardless of one political persuassion. So, as this arguement has been shot down as just silly, up crops a new one:

Homeless people wanting to vote might face the most difficulty under the law. While the state will provide a voter ID card free of charge to the poor, applicants still must have a birth certificate or other documentation to get the ID card.

“I think it’s wonderful, but if you can’t prove who you are, you can’t get an ID,” said Carter Wolf, executive director of Horizon House, which provides services to homeless people.

this very personal story about Justice O’Conner and her husband, John. John has suffered from Alzheimer’s disease for 17 years, and those of us that have witnessed the disease, can appreciate this story. In a nutshell, the O’Conner family made the decision to put John into an assisted-living center in Phoenix, in hopes of maintaining his quality of life. John has taken up with another patient in the facility and Justice O’Conner is “happy” for him.

From an email I received:

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of ’shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

This is outrageous to say the least and a slap in the face to all those that died to give that whiner his/her voice to protest! I ask all of you to let your voice be heard and stop this madness. I have e-mailed the story to everyone in my address book. Please do the same:

Flag-folding recitations by Memorial Honor Detail volunteers are now banned at the nation’s 125 veterans graveyards because of a complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery.

During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors.

The first fold represents life, the second a belief in eternal life, and so on.

The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

It’s not very often that I share my personal life with you guys, but I wanted to show you something that had my blood boiling. Please follow this link. It will take you to a website called the Pampered Prisoner, and the webpage of a prisoner named Carl Allen Ahlquist. Here is Carl’s history with the Michigan prison system.

Frank Rich and Maureen Dowdy both go for character assassination rather than fact based claims against Justice Thomas.

Maureens piece speaks for itself. She is an attention whore that is not capable of discussing a subject, therefore she spews the ignorance, but hey, at least you are looking at her…it’s all she really wants. In her piece you learn that Thomas got his job because of “poppy”, and Clarence cost Al Gore the election..

Fine. I did it. Everything A. said — let’s just use the initial because it’s still hard for me to speak the name of my victim and tormentor — was true.

I did what I had to do and I didn’t care if it ruined A.’s life. I didn’t even care if people thought it was obscene.

They will stop at nothing! Here’s the flier and here is the red meat behind it:

Is your enemy the state?
Befriend a recruiter and keep your friends close and your enemies closer!…
This campaign is not about (badgering?) recruiters. It is solely about making friends and finding out more about the military that you don’t trust…
Actions to take:…
Prank-call a recruiter to schedule appointments on the other side of town.
Ask a recruiter to pick you up and then tell them you’re hungry.
Ask a recruiter to take you out to eat.

HotAir cites 18 U.S.C. 2388: “Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” Allahpundit correctly points out that it would be near impossible to prove that someone’s interest in enlisting was insincere.

Take a good look at these charts that were provided by Suitably Flip.


The Statutory Ban on Foreign Money in U.S. Elections

A federal statute prohibits persons who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents (that is, holders of “green cards”) from contributing any money to candidates for state or federal office, or to American political parties. The provision was originally enacted in the 1970s. In the 1990s, the statute received some public attention when it was alleged that fundraisers for the Democratic Party and its candidates were attempting to circumvent the law by raising money from foreign sources, including the People’s Republic of China.

In 2002, the law was amended with the adoption of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act–also known as “BCRA” or “McCain-Feingold.” The amendment made clear that the foreign money ban applied to state as well as federal elections, a position that the Federal Election Commission had taken under the old wording of the statute.