Wednesday, October 27, 2010

They Just Don't Get It...

Arizona Law Requiring Voters Prove Citizenship Is Struck Down

So you're thinking, I thought SB 1070 was already waiting for a Supreme Court ruling, if it gets one. This ain't SB 1070...this is Prop 200 from 2004!

That's right, back when W won his 2nd term, 'us' Arizonans voted in a law that said a couple of things. One of them, which fixed something that had frustrated me to no end, was that you had to show IDENTIFICATION when you showed up to vote.

You can still vote absentee - which I do, and which I disagree with (more on that later), but you need to show IDENTIFICATION to register, and you wouldn't get a ballot unless you requested one at your listed address under your registered name.

Of course, leftist groups spent MILLIONS fighting Prop 200 back in 2004. Their argument - obvious, was that it is racist to require people to have identification. It's not racist, however, to assume that a person of certain race is so inept they can't weave their way through this confusing society, created solely by the white man, to a state office, which is in every city, and request an IDENTIFICATION. they LOST that court battle. Why? The law was written to include that 'identification' could mean certain mail from the state with your name on it. A utility bill, etc., along with other paperwork with your name on it. So the court ruled that it was more important to protect the franchise of voting, than to protect the voting rights of those who are so lost, they are homeless AND have no identification.

(If you have ever dealt with homeless people - most of them have ID, most of them have paperwork from the courts, from social services, etc., and most of them can find a dozen places to sell alcohol near where they receive their government check, and/or their medical treatment...but I digress).

In my world, the courts should have thrown out the case - the people that brought the suit, are fighting a FAKE battle for people that don't exist! They are fighting the 'idea'. Because who could find a lawyer, come to court and argue that their rights are being trampled...BUT NOT HAVE ANY STINKING IDENTIFICATION! In my world, the lawyer would have driven them to the MVD, charged them a billable hour - and been done with it!

But somehow, the 9TH CIRCUS COURT OF APPEALS ignored the precedent set in the previous ruling, and said this law was unconstitutional, because state law can not supersede federal law.

Without getting into too much legal speak - the concept of precedent was ignored, and I find NO explanation as to why? The 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country - at the same time, you get alot of precedent coming out of their goofy rulings. That folks, is the shotgun effect. The ACLU and their ilk pour so much money into AZ and CA, they are bound to get one through.

But don't forget this:

The 9th Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski, wrote a sharp dissent, saying the ruling ignored precedent and was flat wrong on its legal analysis.

"Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once," Kozinski concluded. "Count me out."

That means the fight ain't over yet, and I would anticipate this ruling getting overturned (no thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor!).

But the idea, that the circuit's chief judge believes - that you can overturn a previous ruling - ON THE SAME ARGUMENT! That principle what keeps the courts from being like the Executive Branch, constantly changing what the previous administration did.

This sets dangerous precedent, and is another indication that we are fighting to save our country - from enemies within.

No comments: