Supreme Court Issues Rare Correction In Ginsburg Dissent

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portrait130px-Wite-Out_123The U.S. Supreme Court rarely makes a correction — even when they are clearly called for by mistakes in law or fact. To their credit, opinions tend to minimize such errors (beyond those of judgment). After all, with the failing number of cases, the justices write relatively few opinions and take a relatively long time to generate them. That is what made it so notable this week when the Court not only corrected an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but did so in one of her most notable opinions of the year: her dissent in Veasey v. Berry, which was heralded by many in its rejection of voter ID changes in Texas. Ginsburg wrongly stated that “Nor will Texas accept photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.” In fact, such cards are one of seven different types of identification that can be used to prove identity.

The Supreme Court has refused to block a Texas voter identification law for the November election despite a lower federal court ruling it to be too restrictive and unconstitutional. The trial judge found that roughly 600,000 voters could be denied the ability to vote for lack of identification. The court of appeals however had blocked action.

The case was a major defeat (the latest such defeat) for the Obama Administration and Attorney General Eric Holder. The vote was 6-3 and the Administration could not even secure the votes of either Justice Kennedy or Justice Breyer.

However, Ginsburg reportedly did an all-nighter to finish her decision denouncing the law and by extension the majority opinion.

At least Ginsburg admitted to her error. Last Spring, an error was caught in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and fixed but never acknowledged. An similar error by Justice Elena Kagan was corrected but never admitted the error.

Source: NPR

54 thoughts on “Supreme Court Issues Rare Correction In Ginsburg Dissent”

    1. Sandi – it goes back to the days when they would buy your vote for a drink. Vote, then drink!

  1. In CA a provisional ballot is given if you claim eligibility. Once the info is checked the ballot is opened and counted. If not, destroyed. Arguing the merits of Bush and Obama is never ending and a waste. I prefer Bush. I also wonder about the Supreme’s interns. I thought those were the best of the best. Perhaps the corrections are not made until someone outside the Court brings it up. Maybe Ginsburg’s were more public, so she needed to comment. I know of two occasions of voter fraud. Both in Ohio. A woman voted six times and felt she had done nothing wrong. She was charged, found guilty, sentenced, but served no time. Another case was a District that had more votes cast than lived in the District. I believe it is still an open inquiry. That District will have a great deal of scrutiny next week. I don’t know if the woman convicted will be watched. The most heinous fraud is voting for the dead, a Chicago tradition. Paying people to vote is ethically poor. I very much like the Canadian’s preference for facts. The Bush/Gore decision was simple. You cannot change the rules of an election after the election takes place. Sounds reasonable to me. The FL Supremes were going to allow that and, correctly, stopped. I find facts to be preferable myself. I’ve voted in every election since eligibility and have had no problem. If I was poor, I’d be calling my House Rep for help with an ID. I would call as many people as necessary to get the ID. I think it’s a matter of desire.

    1. Sandi – paying voters is against the law, but the Dems are doing it by offering Cosmos girls in Florida or something. The Dems are rewarding you with sex and nothing will happens. Dunkin Donuts was going to give voters a free cup of coffee and found they were ‘buying votes.’

Comments are closed.