The Supreme Court, flouting the 14th Amendment

So Digby's Hullabaloo blog has been on the Supreme Court's upholding of the Indiana's Voting ID Law and the effects thereof The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud. It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.


...

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"


However


Voter ID laws, however, affect more than an "infinitesimal" number of Americans and are more than a "minor inconvenience." According to the federal government, there are as many as 21 million voting-age Americans without driver's licenses. In Indiana, 13 percent of registered voters lack the documents needed to obtain a license, and therefore, cast a ballot. These restrictions disproportionately hit low-income, minority, handicapped, and elderly voters the hardest, leading to lower levels of voter participation.

Those affected also tend to vote Democratic, which may explain why Karl Rove and his colleagues have pursued so-called voter fraud with such zeal. Several U.S. attorneys ousted in the Bush administration's infamous prosecutor purge even alleged that they were fired because they refused to aggressively prosecute baseless voter fraud claims.

There is no credible evidence of rampant voter fraud at polling places nationwide. Sure, there may be ballot box stuffing, electronic voter machine hacking, and list manipulation. Voter ID laws, however, don't address these problems. Of the 38 cases of voter fraud the Justice Department prosecuted between 2002 and 2005, 14 were thrown out. With no credible studies to back up their allegations of voter fraud, conservatives even established a front group led by the general counsel of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign to create such reports.

Now see, the fun of all this is that while every study has found that voter ID fraud is practically nonexistent, voter suppression, which seems to be practised with a certain amount of relish by Republicans, is a MUCH more serious problem, and laws like this make it much, much easier. See, for instance, what Barry Goldwater did in 1964:

"'Operation Eagle Eye' was publicly established by the Republican National Committee on October 13. To make the program nation-wide a 'ballot security' official--the very name suggests that voting is illegal or at least dangerous--was named in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

"'In one state, Minnesota, 'Operation Ballot Security' issued a seven-page single-space private memorandum detailing a variety of methods for challenging voters at the polls, with instructions to discourage helpful judges in Democratic precincts, to cut off waiting lines in Democratic precincts but not in Republican precincts, and to encourage stalling in Democratic precincts while preventing stalling in Republican precincts.

"'The Minnesota document goes so far as to state its purpose, not as encouraging each American to exercise his right to vote freely but 'to safeguard the investment of time, money, and effort that the Republican Party, its volunteers, its candidates, and their volunteers have made in this election.'

"As for specific instructions, the Republican memorandum says:

"'If any questions or dispute arises, refer to the pertinent authority cited below and (when it is to your party's interest) insist that the law be followed.' (Emphasis added).

"'Stalling in booths is a common trick when lines are long in order to discourage those waiting. In GOP precincts, keep lines moving.'

"Memorandum like this leave no doubt in my mind that the Republican strategy for November 3 is the excessive, indiscriminate and unnecessary challenge of every voter.

Go read the whole thing, as it includes links to debunked "voter fraud" allegations, as well as more on the 1964 effort to disenfranchise Americans who were more likely to vote Democrat.
Digby goes on to highlight a report submitted to the Center For Voting Rights just before the 2004 election on the issue of voter suppression.

Apparently, among the other very interesting things in this report, this gem was reported:

I was surprised to see that the Republican National Lawyers Association (where Rove delivered his speech last spring in which, among other things, he mentioned as "problems" those states from which the targeted US Attorneys hail) was pretty much formed for the express and exclusive purpose of training and deploying lawyers on matters of purported voter fraud (aka minority vote suppression.) Neither did I know before that they played a pivotal role in the Florida Recount.

Indeed

bradhicks however, picks up on some rather interesting and very underreported nuances to this ruling:

Because, as a few of the news stories and editorials I've seen elsewhere have also picked up, this is actually a much more complicated ruling than usual. Unless they're unanimous, Supreme Court rulings are always divided into two sections: the ruling majority opinion, and the complaining losers' dissents. But what we have in this case is three entirely conflicting opinions, each with three votes. Three judges, unsurprisingly led by Scalia (who never saw an attack on any minority other than Catholics that he didn't like), think that anywhere that Republicans are the majority, then as long as Republicans can come up with even a fig leaf of an excuse to disenfranchise Democrats, that's their right as the (permanent) majority; suck it, losers. Three judges, led by David Souter, flatly oppose disenfranchising any voters without first meeting a very high standard of proof. And three judges, including the Chief Justice, basically voted to throw the case out of the Supreme Court ... for now. Ordinarily, a 3:3:3 split means the Court doesn't hand down its ruling, yet, but somehow, behind the scenes, somebody managed to glue together a 6 vote majority by persuading the latter group that since they agreed with the hardcore Republican group about the merits of thiss particular case, that constituted a majority.

And if you look at the official ruling, its defense of this law is pretty tepid. Because what's really going on here, the side that really won (of the three sides), is the side that's on the winning side of a very long argument that's been going on these last couple of years about an entirely unrelated point of constitutional law: namely, the role of the Supreme Court in what are called facial challenges. A facial challenge is one in which someone argues that even though they can't show any one person who's been hurt yet by a law or other government action, and can't even show one actual plaintiff who will be hurt by it, they can still challenge the constitutionality of the law in front of the Supreme Court by arguing that the law is so blatantly awful on the face of it (the "face" in "facial challenge") that it must be struck down, preemptively, to protect the U.S. Constitution. What's going on here, pretty much all of the analysts from both sides agree, is that this is just the latest in a series of rulings, this year, in which the Supreme Court is sending a clear message: they want to get completely out of the business of hearing facial challenges. The three-vote ruling majority (by virtue of the 3-vote non-binding concurrence) as much as says, in the ruling, show us even one voter who's been improperly disenfranchised by this law, bring us a case in which that person has first been harmed by a voter ID law, then proven in a lower court that they've been harmed, and then that person will have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of these laws. Until then? They're saying "get out of our ... well, get out of our face," not to make too awful a pun out of it, I hope.


Well, if this about not having actual people who were harmed by this law, listen up Supreme Court, cause here are the first of the wave:


Nuns are not being allowed to vote in Indiana's primary. Seriously

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Hold up. No provisional ballots?!!??!? Let me link to this snippet of the majority opinion highlighted by dday on Hullabaloo:The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.


So, well, the provisional ballots don't work. Not that they were always counted anyway.

Alas for the 14th Amendment.


What I find highly amusing about this? The fact that the USA sends people out to monitor the elections of other countries. Something about ignoring beams in eyes while screaming at your neighbour about the mote in his?

Blog posts I'm having fun with

1. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has said it is considering a temporary cessation of hostilities in the oil-producing region based on an appeal by United States presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama.
MEND also said in an e-mail that its ceasefire was to enable the federal government to have a rethink over the way it has handled the matter concerning its leader, Mr. Henry Okah.
The spate of attacks in the last two weeks has led to more volatility in the crude oil market with substantial production cuts in Nigeria.


And this isn't the first time. Back in January, JANUARY, he was on the horn to Kenya trying to help calm the violence in the wake of contested elections there.
Of course the story of Obama's action in this case contrasted with Hillary's bluster is a fun political story in the context of this increasingly-absurd campaign, and you can find the same Reuters story cut and paste across a variety of news sites like Politico.
But I want to go a step further and try to be the media I want to see. What is MEND? Why is there so much violence in the Niger delta? And why should we care? Really cool breakdown on the situation follows.


2. So what constitutes the "Black" in Black TV?


3. Feminist Tools for Recognising and countering Racism



4. Reexamining the Phrase Oppression Olympics


5. The Other Retroactive Immunity: Gitmo Show trialsApparently. the New York Times is reporting that:The former chief prosecutor here took the witness stand on Monday on behalf of a detainee and testified that top Pentagon officials had pressured him in deciding which cases to prosecute and what evidence to use. The prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis of the Air Force, testified that Pentagon officials had interfered with his work for political reasons and told him that charges against well-known detainees “could have real strategic political value” and that there could be no acquittals. His testimony completed one of the more unusual transformations in the contentious history of Guantánamo. Colonel Davis, who is on active duty as a senior Air Force official and was one of the Pentagon’s most vocal advocates of the Guantánamo military commissions, has become one of the most visible critics of the system. Looseheadprop on firedoglake breaks down the bullshit and its implications for America's battered rule of law.

ETA:LJ user liz_marcs points out a a few Key facts about municipal budgets, just a few things that several rather clueless small gov't! no taxes! no spending! advocates REALLY need to understand BEFORE they run around being ignorant

Better truth than flattery

Jay Bookman

is deputy editorial page editor

of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

We Americans have a high regard for ourselves. We are - or so we tell ourselves - the richest, the most generous, the most powerful, the most peace-loving, the most productive, the most wise, and the most lovable nation on the face of the earth.

We also love politicians who dare to tell us all those wonderful things about ourselves. Like any people, we want to think well of our country and take pride in it, and we want leaders who take pride in it as well.

But there's a difference between justified pride and illusion.

Too many Americans seem to believe that our place in the world has been divinely ordained and thus permanent, when in fact it is the product of past sacrifice and wise choices. It can all be lost if we also lose the capacity to look at ourselves and our problems honestly.

It is no longer true, for example, that we are the richest nation in the world. Quite the contrary, in recent years we have become the world's biggest debtor nation. We are financing our prosperity in the manner of an old but declining aristocratic family, living beyond our means year by year by pawning off the assets earned by earlier generations.

But our leaders don't dare tell us that truth, because they know we wouldn't take it well. Even as they acknowledge some minor current difficulties, most of our political and business leaders reassure us that our economy is still sound as a dollar. They don't happen to point out that compared with the euro, the value of that dollar has declined by a third in just the last five years.

Yes, we remain productive, but that too cannot last if our government is too poor to invest sufficiently in our public infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, rail lines and ports are crumbling and insufficient in a modern economy, but we decline to tax ourselves to correct that situation. Our nation's Highway Trust Fund - the main source of infrastructure investment - will be bankrupt by 2009, yet we refuse to increase gasoline taxes to replenish that account.

Officially, we tell ourselves we can't afford it. Meanwhile we ship fortunes to oil producers overseas, where the money is put to such useful and productive purposes as building ski resorts in the Arabian desert.

There are no easy answers to $4 gasoline, but our leaders are nonetheless eager to offer a few. Some choose to bash the oil companies, as if they are at fault for our addiction to their product. Others suggest suspending the federal gasoline tax, which would slightly and temporarily ease our pain at the gas pump but do nothing whatsoever to cure the underlying disease.

President Bush, for his part, suggests drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet another seemingly pain-free solution. But we could drain the wildlife refuge of every single drop of oil it might hold and it would not lower the price of gasoline a nickel. Nor would it alter our strategic situation in any meaningful way.

Four hundred years ago, an English writer-philosopher offered great advice to a counselor to King James I. Always tell the king the truth, Sir Francis Bacon wrote in a letter to his friend. Tell the king what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear.

"If you flatter him, you betray him," Bacon warned. "If you conceal the truth of those things from him . . . you are as dangerous a traitor to this state as he that riseth in arms against him."

A lot of things have changed since Bacon's time. In this country, We the People are now king, but Bacon's truth still applies. Those advisers and courtiers who flatter us also betray us.

Instead of flattery, we need honesty. We don't need leaders to tell us how great we are, we need leaders willing to tell us that we've gotten ourselves into a bad mess and it's going to take hard work, sacrifice and cooperation to fix it. The alternative is the decline of a great nation.

Or, as a writer-philosopher named Bob Dylan once put it:

If it keeps on raining, the levee's gonna break;

Some people still sleepin', some people wide awake./blockquote>

From here

Via:the field negro

*blink*

Ananova:

Balancing act

It may look like the most dangerous motorbike in the world but this new invention is actually the latest form of green transport.

Read on

Via Shakesville

From the WTF Files

1.I have no words I have been flabbergasted, horrified, angry as hell, stunned, helpless, all since I read about this yesterday.There is no way that I can write coherently about this travesty, this callousness, this exploitation, this...*flails*

but, luckily...Spencer Ackerman surely nails it in his blog post And then you wonder why they burn your buildings down

A taste: In a city consumed by chaos, war, occupation, corruption, intermittent and unreliable electricity, sewage overflows that you sometimes have to wade through, food shortages, public-health crises, you know what you shouldn’t build?

…luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.

That’s all part of a five-year development “dream list” — or what some dub an improbable fantasy — to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad’s future.

But the $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon and apparently the interest of some deep pockets in the world of international hotels and development, the lead military liaison for the project told the Associated Press.

That sort of indifference to the suffering of Iraq is provocative. If I was Moqtada Sadr, I would use it as a rallying cry. Consider:

“When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time,” said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.

Your neighbors! Your actual neighbors, the ones whose country it is, experience shortages of water, electricity, fuel, cooking oil, medical care, security and more. The rise of this hotel compound will drain resources away from a desperate population...

Go read the whole thing. And click on the links. I don't think that I've heard ANYTHING about those sewage problems on the mainstream media, have you?

In addition The CarpetBagger Report points out that Even now — with violence in Baghdad again creeping up — the faint hints of the development plan have driven up the Green Zone’s already sky-high real estate prices.

Land that a few years ago was going for $60 a square meter on 50-year leases in the zone is now going for up to $1,000 a square meter, American officials said.


Ah. So we are now hell bent in pricing Iraqis out of their own capital. Gentrification for the WIN!


Oh great!!! Perfect!!! We blew Iraq to bits, completely destroyed their basic infrastructure, cannot guarantee security in our own Green Zone, put tons of people out of work, and what are our priorities? Building a fucking theme park to provide a buffer zone between the population and our obscenely expensive Embassy! Yep, I see NO REASON AT ALL why the Iraqis shouldn't resent us Americans. No reason AT ALL, why Cleric Sadr's message might be appealing to them. And considering the fact that they still can't stop attacks on the heavily fortified Green Zone, precisely HOW are they going to protect this monstrosity? With more US soldier's lives? Really?



2. And then, to top it off, read "The Journalism of Empire: AN exhibit in the LA Times" as diarist Lithium Cola dissects this LA times article Blackwater Shooting Highlights Iraq?US Culture Clash

Imagine a future in which the United States has been invaded and occupied by China. Imagine that Chinese forces speeding through downtown Chicago open fire in an intersection and kill your son, as he sits in the passenger seat of your car. Now imagine that the American Branch of the Chinese Government offers you money to make up for it.

Imagine that you say to the Chinese official holding out the cash, "I don't want your money. I want you to think American life is precious."

According to an article in the LA Times headlined Blackwater shooting highlights a U.S., Iraq culture clash, you are weird and hard to understand; the product of an alien culture.

...

BBaraa Sadoon had "60 fragments of bullet lodged in his abdomen":

Several times he asked about his car, which was shot up in the incident. Investigators told him it was still needed for the investigation. They wanted to know whether he planned to ask for compensation. He was miffed.

"I want you to feel that Iraqi life is precious," he said he told them.

It is an all-too-typical effect of war and occupation. The population of the imperial power -- in this case, you and I -- is told that the occupied people are strange, their culture too hard for we more civilized people to understand. The article both insults the intelligence of the reader and distorts and damages our understanding of ourselves and other human beings around the world.

Physician Haitham Rubaie doesn't want money either. What he wants above all is justice for his wife, a doctor, and his son, a medical student, who died.

He rebuffed attempts to have a donation to an orphanage made in his family's name. No amount of cash, no matter how well-intentioned, would sweep this under the rug.

"I don't want any help from you," he said he told them. "If you want to help the orphans, you give them money yourselves.

As readers, we are asked to think of Dr. Rubaie as culturally distant from us. A believer in a kind of justice we neither grasp nor would ever accept.


Our system is so different from theirs," said David Mack, a former U.S. diplomat who has served in American embassies in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. "An honor settlement has to be both financial and it has to have the right symbolism. We would never accept their way of doing things, and they don't accept ours."

Is this also an effect of imperialism? That we, the occupiers, come to think that "ours," our justice system, our sense of right and wrong, of just and the unjust, is so shallow and base? Do we evict our souls so we can stand the thought of the killing and torture of civilians in other lands? Do we reduce ourselves to imagining that we, in their position, would accept the money?

Note the emphasis on unimportant cultural accouterments. Iraqi "glasses of tea" are mentioned, and we are meant to understand that we, the readers, are not like that. We don't care about commiseration. We don't care about responsibility. We know nothing of these "glasses of tea":

But traditional Arab society values honor and decorum above all. If a man kills or badly injures someone in an accident, both families convene a tribal summit. The perpetrator admits responsibility, commiserates with the victim, pays medical expenses and other compensation, all over glasses of tea in a tribal tent.

A neighbor pays a neighbor's medical expenses and admits responsibility. They must be Martians.

In other words, the LA Times seems to think that accepting responsibility and making amends for wrong-doing is totally a quaint custom belonging to a backward, native Iraqi culture. After all, which Iraqi life is important, compared to that of an American? Ya'll need to click through read this to the end to catch the kicker.