Time for your nap, Ruth.
Posted on 07/26/2013 8:54:06 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she's not surprised that Southern states have pushed ahead with tough voter identification laws and other measures since the Supreme Court freed them from strict federal oversight of their elections.
Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press that Texas' decision to implement its voter ID law hours after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last month was powerful evidence of an ongoing need to keep states with a history of voting discrimination from making changes in the way they hold elections without getting advance approval from Washington.
The Justice Department said Thursday it would try to bring Texas and other places back under the advance approval requirement through a part of the law that was not challenged.
"The notion that because the Voting Rights Act had been so tremendously effective we had to stop it didn't make any sense to me," Ginsburg said in a wide-ranging interview late Wednesday in her office at the court. "And one really could have predicted what was going to happen."
The 80-year-old justice dissented from the 5-4 decision on the voting law. Ginsburg said in her dissent that discarding the law was "like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
Just a month removed from the decision, she said, "I didn't want to be right, but sadly I am."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Ruthie sounds like she’s a big fan of voter fraud. She’s a ‘RAT so I imagine she is.
But you are not right, just senile.
Gee..., I’m shocked by her stance on this....
Time for your nap, Ruth.
In my opinion, if Holder goes ahead, and the case ends up back at the Supreme Court, Ginsburg would be obligated to recuse herself for these comments.
It is rare that a justice so brazenly speaks about a case that is likely to come before the court.
I propose that the same criterion be used to verify eligibility that is used to verify eligibility to buy a gun. Whatever it is. No ID to vote? Ok, no ID to buy a gun. Full criminal background check to buy a gun? Fine, full criminal background check to vote. Both are Constitutional rights, right? Felons and illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to do either, right? Sauce for the goose.
Just remember Ginsburg, what you apply to voting shall be applied to other Civil Rights like owning a firearm. Pick one or the other, we know how to make it so you can’t have both.
How is it so extremely tough to show a government ID to prove you are who you say you are? Good grief you cannot function in modern society without an ID. Certainly not in an urban city. What do they do when banks, utilities, grocery stores - buying cigarettes and alcohol, police officers, ask for an ID? Good grief it’s a tremendously lame argument.
And it’s not like anyone is singled out to show ID, everyone is no matter how big, small, color, gender, etc.
I really wish this obvious question would finally be asked to these people who are getting away with saying it’s such a burden and so hard on people to show a damn ID.
The law should be:
The same ID/paperwork you need to buy a gun should be the same as to vote.
Both are constitutional rights.
Both should be treated the same.
Liberals that want it both ways (massive amounts of paperwork/ID to buy a gun but nada to vote) are just hypocrites distorting the Constitution for their own power.
I can think of a lot better analogies.
For example, discarding the section of the law that punished states for crimes 50 years ago is like letting a convicted felon out of prison when their time is up. Oh wait -- that's a good thing.
Throwing out the law was like parents firing a tutor when their child graduates from high school. Because you never know when you might need a tutor again....
Throwing out the law was like leaving rehab, just because the doctor says rehab worked for you.
I think that is only fair. We could throw abortion in there to, the left supposedly believes it’s a constitutional right to.
It’s time for Buzzy to go out to pasture.
Is she soiling herself on the bench again?
Heaven forfend people should have to show identification to vote.
What a racist thing that is.
Voting is NOT a Constitutional right...ask a felon.
Because you are not very bright.
A child care facility may be very effective -- but you don't leave your child there for their entire life.
A road crew might be very effective in patching the potholes. But you don't keep re-patching them when you have accomplished it.
Running may be very effective when you have to get somewhere quickly, but you still stop running when you get there.
A campaign for office can be very effective, but it would be nice if they would STOP the damn thing once they win, and actually do the job.
Great logic and great point.
Think somebody would tell her, "They're not the same thing Buzzy".
By that standard then neither is buying a gun.
agreed. Very well put.
Yeah, and people who talk all the time about freedom and liberty need to be all put in jail.....
And don't forget, access to a Federal Courthouse. If a person does not require ID to vote, why should they EVER have to show ID in a Federal Courthouse? In fact, to enter a LOT of Government buildings they REQUIRE that you leave your drivers license. Sounds discriminatory to me!
What constitutional right to vote? Quote the referenced Amendment, please.
She is 3.5% of the Federal Government. 1/9 of 1/3.
Very deserving,right?
I have yet to ever hear a rational argument against voter ID.
On the one hand, if your implication were correct that it isn’t a Constitutional right, then people seeking to vote should be held to stricter scrutiny than those seeking to buy guns. Indeed, it is legal for legal (non-citizen) immigrants to buy guns, but not vote.
On the other hand, the Fifteenth Amendment provides that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” IF it is calling out a right to vote, then that right must exist and indeed is recognized in this Amendment, even if it is never explicitly spelled out. Note that “other rights are retained by the people” and that “enumeration of certain rights is not meant to deny or disparage other rights, which are held by the people.”
Please don’t tell me that you think no rights exist except for the explicitly enumerated ones. Because if you did, then provisions like which I cited wouldn’t make sense, among other things.
Voter ID law = Voter rights law for legal voters.
Roseanna Dana Ginsberg.....
It’s like pickin yer nose.. all you end up with is somethin snarky that stinks.... i.e. Ginsbuggars...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the archetype of the modern Jewish liberal. She is stunningly arrogant, not because she's essentially an arrogant person but because she holds a fixed belief which justifies for her virtually any degree of social engineering. The core belief is that she has the moral high ground on race and others, especially those in the American South of the 1940s and 1950s when she was coming of age, are morally despicable. If they are not despicable they are at least in need of enlightenment. Everything she said in this interview proceeds from this assumption.
This assumption animated her career as counsel for the ACLU. In her role as counsel for the ACLU and in her role as Justice of the United States Supreme Court, she put her extraordinary mind to the task of providing the legal rationalizations for her moral worldview. She has had much success because she is brilliant but also because she was riding a cultural wave which shared her assumptions. Like the blues Brothers, these cultural warriors were on a mission from their secular God. Their certainty armed them with a kind of Cromwellian righteousness which the culture could not resist.
If one reads Ginsburg's opinions, especially her dissents on abortion, one sees the same almost evangelical fervor coming through, proceeding from the assumption that she must put society right, this time on behalf of women's rights. She proceeds from her moral view and shapes the Constitution and law to fit.
When a person possessed of this intellectual candlepower applies her talent to shaping society according to her moral compass, she can readily find the legal rationalizations to do good. She has been doing good all her legal career. Because she is so smart, she has acceded to a place where the good she does can cause so much harm.
Excellent idea. Although some states do allow felons to vote it is still good.
Article I § 2: “The House of Representatives . . . chosen every second year by the people of the several states and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
Notwithstanding age, and other amendments regarding race, gender, the states may set any other qualifications as they wish. Proving the identify of an elector is fully within the purview of the states per the constitution.
Too smart for society’s good.
Ginsburg is simply displaying the anti-Southern bigotry so common among the nation’s elites. She simply can’t control her bias on this issue. Like so many Ivy league graduates she is very comfortable expressing her preconceived negative opinions about Southerners.
Careful General, you run the risk of being called an anti-Semite, just for speaking the truth, but not by me. After studying this phenomenon myself over some time, allow me to clarify your observation one step further. IMO, what you see with Ginsburg is nothing short of rebellion against the Lord in Heaven. "Stunningly arrogant" and judgmental imposition are the characteristics of such a turning away. Sadly, this story has played out in every land since the diaspora.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.