Tag Archives: freedom

Voting Rights

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Ohio officials to reinstate a week of same-day registration and early voting before an election, finding a 2014 state law eliminating the practice violated the Constitution by depressing African-American voting.

Judge Michael Watson said this in his ruling:

They have greater time and resource limitations that may prevent them from waiting in line on Election Day and are less likely to vote absentee.

Never mind that there are no impediments to voting absentee.  Not economic, transportation, time, [or] child-care constraints that increase the cost of voting.

This is a bad ruling.  Not only has he misstated the impediments, he also has applied the wrong solution to his claimed wrong.  The second paragraph of the 14th Amendment prescribes the penalty to be applied to a State that has deprived some of its voting-eligible citizens of their right to vote.  Which, of course this judge knows, since he explicitly cited that paragraph in his ruling.

Judges like this are forcing an end to early voting altogether and requiring voting to go back exclusively to in-person on election day or by absentee ballot.

‘Course, that might not be a bad outcome in its own right.  Absentee ballot voting also is early voting.  And couch potatoes need go no farther than their mailbox to vote.

Watson’s ruling can be seen here.

The Obama/Lynch Justice Department

Posted on by
1

A federal judge in Texas has ordered hundreds of US Department of Justice lawyers to undergo ethics training, accusing the agency of a “calculated plan of unethical conduct.”

The extraordinary order by US District Judge Andrew S Hanen says Justice Department lawyers intentionally misled him in the course of a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other mostly conservative states challenging the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Hanen wrote in his order

What remains before this Court is the question of whether the Government’s lawyers must play by the rules.
…
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or “Justice Department”) has now admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts.  It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.

And this:

The decision of the lawyers who apparently determined that these three-year renewals…were not covered by the Plaintiff States’ pleadings was clearly unreasonable.  The conduct of the lawyers who then covered up this decision was even worse.

Such conduct is certainly not worthy of any department whose name includes the word “Justice.”

In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.  There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations.

Nor has this been simply a “first offense.”

This Court in at least one prior order has detailed the multiple times attorneys for the Government misrepresented the actions being taken (or, according to their representations, not being taken) by their clients.

Hanen’s reference to 100,000 was to 100,000 deferrals under the Obama edict that had already been granted, contrary to the DoJ lawyers’ representations at trial.

Unfortunately, Hanen has no authority to disbar these despicable liars.  It’s interesting to note, however, that while Hansen assures us that he’s satisfied these misbehaviors did not occur after Attorney General Loretta Lynch ascended to her AG-ship, Lynch herself has chosen to remain silent on the matter—and by clear implication, to do absolutely nothing concerning these…lawyers…who now work for her.  In particular, these persons are still on the Government’s payroll.

Is there any way at all this DoJ can be trusted with any case before it or potentially before it?

Elections have consequences.

Not Only a Correct Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

…but a correct rationale, also.

US District Judge Henry Hudson upheld Virginia’s voter ID law that requires prospective voters to show a State-approved photo ID before they vote.  In response to the Democratic Party’s (it was the plaintiff, of course) claim that the law was politically motivated, Hudson held in part

The court’s mission is to judge not the wisdom of the Virginia voter ID law, but rather its constitutionality[.]

Hear, hear.  Hudson went on:

While the merits of this voter identification law, and indeed all aspects of Virginia’s voting regime, can be reasonably debated, it remains true that Virginia has created a scheme of laws to accommodate all people in their right to vote[.]

Indeed.  Such a debate is important to be held, in all of our States.  But the debate is a political one, to be held among the citizens of each State and their elected representatives in their legislatures and governor’s mansions.  It is outside the realm of our courts to conduct political debates.

Still, the cynicism persists.

Lawyers representing the state Democratic Party said in a filing that the Republican-dominated state legislature passed the photo ID law “to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of the Democratic Party in Virginia.”

Not at all.  The suit is nothing other than a disingenuous effort by the Democratic Party to wage lawfare in an attempt to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of protections for the sanctity of each citizen’s vote in Virginia, a sanctity at risk from voter fraud.

More Fallout

Posted on by
Reply

…from President Barack Obama’s (D) timidity in the South China Sea.

Beijing has responded to the January election of Tsai and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party by intensifying pressure on Taiwan with military exercises, diplomatic moves and cross-border deportations and prosecutions.

It’s quite explicit.  Here’s Zhu Weidong, Deputy Director Institute of Taiwan Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing:

It is impossible for the mainland to get along with a party or a leader that doesn’t recognize the one-China policy or seeks to split the country.

There will be no so-called cold peace, but will definitely be a fresh confrontation.  In that case, the domestic and international situation for Taiwan will only get more and more difficult.

And Li Fei, Xiamen University’s Taiwan Research Institute Deputy Director:

If Tsai fails to recognize the ’92 consensus and one-China principle, there will be no room left for Taiwan’s diplomacy.

And this, too:

In April, a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s steel committee ejected a [RoC] delegation after China complained.

We could help Tsai and the Republic of China by expanding trade with the RoC to reduce its dependency on the PRC and by selling the RoC arms with which to upgrade and strengthen its military.  And we could tell the PRC to stop whining; the RoC, as a vibrant, prosperous nation, is entirely welcome in organizations like the OECD.

A personal, State Dinner-type meeting between our President and President Tsai would go a long way, too.

Another Right Answer by a Federal Trial Court

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering DC police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

US District Judge Richard J Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment….

And another protection of our individual liberties.  Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says (again, for those of you steady readers of this blog):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice that (again…): there’s not a syllable of permission for the Federal government to dictate to us citizens what our purpose in keeping and bearing may be.  The Federal government has no legitimate interest in our purpose, and so any demand that we satisfy the Federal government of our good reason is not merely unconstitutional, it’s dishonestly so.

We citizens do, through our government, restrict convicted felons’ right to keep and bear.  It stops there, though: unless the Federal government can show that a citizen has been convicted of a felony, it cannot further restrict.

Full stop.