September 25, 2007
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to Indiana’s voter identification law, in a timely case that sets up a confrontation between officials who claim such laws prevent voter fraud and challengers who say ID requirements keep some people from the polls.
The Indiana law requires voters to show a government photo ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, to qualify to vote. Last January, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rejected claims by the state Democratic party that the law infringes on the voting rights of people without easy access to such IDs, particularly the poor.
The Court will also hear a case on lethal injection as criminal punishment.
October 24, 2005
I gave the administration the benefit of the doubt, I think. I was supportive; I felt Bush knew the nominee and she would make a good Justice. At the very least, I was neutral, wanting to see what came out in the hearings.
But now I must say that I oppose the Miers nomination.
This nomination has been handled at the best poorly and at the worst with incompetence. News in the past week has highlighted how Miers was vetted by few in the administration and that there are feelers of a Miers pullout. There was also the sloppy answer to the question on equal representation, senators’ rejection as inadequate her answers to a questionaire, and the cessation of Senate visits after reports of saying something to a senator and then clarifying it later, usually with a completely opposite meaning.
This comes on the heels of the stumbling start and “bones” thrown to the social conservatives to reassure them that Miers would vote “the right way.”
It’s just too much anymore.
October 20, 2005
It all comes from the weekend “Crossroads” section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
We lead off with the editorial board who says there is Hypocrisy on the religion question. Of course, the MJS charging hypocrisy is like the pot calling the kettle black when they investigate every little alleged Republican infraction and yet say nothing about “Diamond Jim” Doyle’s (like these).
We have two who are “against” the nomination, Prof. Althouse (you can read more at her blog) and Ms. Miner. All I’m gonna say is that I thought the hearings were the place we were supposed to find out about whether she was worthy to be a justice.
Oh yeah, that’s right, as I pointed out here most of the time is spent with senators making boring speeches trying to convince the nominee to vote for their pet cause.
Then in favor are Rick Garber, chairman of the Republican Party in Wisconsin, who predictably covers the president’s talking points (which I don’t consider to be illogical, if only they had used all these in the introduction). The second is William Rusher from the The Claremont Institute.
An argument of Rusher’s that impressed me is that the Bush’s are still smarting from Souter’s “betrayal,” and Dubya would be unlikely to nominate any one for SCOTUS unless he was sure of that person’s philosophy.
I’m sure that won’t convince the opponents, but I’m not sure anything would at this point. Roberts himself was initially opposed by conservatives because of some of his opinions.