The 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
criminal convictions are a matter of public record. perhaps one of you might provide some explicit facts about the number of prosecutions, and (more importantly) the number of convictions for “voter fraud” in, say, the state of texas in the last 20 years.
in the absence of which … lol!
Jim22, Steve H:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong, or non-libertarian, with biometric identification, if it is voluntary and the information is only used for what the profferer of the id agreed to it being used for, as well as it being destroyed if the bearer wants it so.
I admit it feels a bit squirrelly, and is prone to official govt’l abuse, but that unfortunately is true of every database the govt keeps.
If you want to vote, and the govt is going be rigorous in you proving who you are, then it is either going to be a photo id, or some other id – like biometric id.
Such db regulations should provide a private cause of action if they are officially abused.
Jim22
alan tiger – “yesterday, i saw a clip of an interview with a canadian senator, taken soon after the attack in ottowa. when asked for his opinion about the attack and the reasons for it, the senator replied, “before i give an opinion, i like to get the facts.”
…
==========================
Yeah boy.
It was like when tater said “before I start talkin’ I’d like to say sumpin'” …
Yeah boy …
Dick Brewster
I am always amazed when folks say a voter ID requirement keeps the less fortunate among us from voting.
……….
=========================
Are you dazed when courts do so after a long trial?
alan tiger – “yesterday, i saw a clip of an interview with a canadian senator, taken soon after the attack in ottowa. when asked for his opinion about the attack and the reasons for it, the senator replied, “before i give an opinion, i like to get the facts.”
before anyone can give you an opinion about so-called voter fraud, there must be some real evidence of real voter fraud. isolated, anecdotal, biased, and generally inaccurate “reports” from such as murdoch’s faux news do not constitute evidence.”
Examples please? And please let me know what “news” sources meet your approval and feel free to keep your head in the sand.
Steve H. – “Biometrics? You mean fingerprints, retinal scan and/or genetic profiling. Cool. That’s got to be a lot easier on everyone, especially the poor, than getting a photo ID. And I applaud a Libertarian for suggesting it. LOL.”
I agree. I was hoping Gary T would show how true of a Libertarian he really is when I asked him for more details. I wonder what database he would be using for the biometric.
I am always amazed when folks say a voter ID requirement keeps the less fortunate among us from voting. If a person accepts financial assistance from the state of Federal government, does that person not have a photo ID, or some ID that can be approved for voting? If the person drives a car, there is the drivers’ license. There are so many forms of identification needed in just surviving. I simply do not think an ID requirement is a burden. I know voter fraud is hard to prove on any significant scale. I do personally know of an instance where a group of students voted in at least two precincts for the same candidate. (Both precincts were within the boundaries of this candidate’s “district.”) I estimated some 25 to 30 students voted at last twice, and the total winning margin for their candidate was about 25 votes, after a recount.
Biometrics? You mean fingerprints, retinal scan and/or genetic profiling. Cool. That’s got to be a lot easier on everyone, especially the poor, than getting a photo ID. And I applaud a Libertarian for suggesting it. LOL.
Meanwhile, back to Ginsberg. It is my opinion that the reason SCOTUS corrected her facts and then announced the correction it because the error could impact the voting of veterans if not corrected. “Mary, I can’t vote in the election.” “Harry, why not? You have a picture ID.” “But, the Supreme Court said that Texas will not accept my Veterans Admin ID.”
When a SCOTUS Justice misquotes a State law, especially one concerning voting, the record needs to be corrected publicly.
jim22:
yesterday, i saw a clip of an interview with a canadian senator, taken soon after the attack in ottowa. when asked for his opinion about the attack and the reasons for it, the senator replied, “before i give an opinion, i like to get the facts.”
before anyone can give you an opinion about so-called voter fraud, there must be some real evidence of real voter fraud. isolated, anecdotal, biased, and generally inaccurate “reports” from such as murdoch’s faux news do not constitute evidence.
Gary T, What then is your solution to voter fraud?
Jim22: like I said maybe biometrics.
Dick Brewster:
Your aside presumes that someone wants anything to do with all those institutions. Although there isn’t currently a law demanding that you join one or more of them, it is (intentionally) getting harder and harder to live in America without one.
However, the right to vote is fundamental, and you shouldn’t need anything but yourself to do so. To demand that you belong to some governmental or societal institution in order to vote is effectively a Const’l violation.
I find it amusing when I come across a LINO. There they are shouting in no uncertain terms that they are libertarian, but then propose the most unlibertarian things you could imagine.
I bite my tongue, and then ask a few probing questions, that lead them right to a statement that even non-libertarians would say WTF?
Unlike the other parties, it is much harder to be a LINO, than a RINO or DINO.
Hey, what’s wrong with that? That’s the will of the people. That’s how government should determine our rights; it’s only fair.
Dems want to run elections like MLB does for All-Stars. The usher just goes down the aisle, asking how many ballots you want, and the scoreboard instructs you to vote for hometown players.
Anyone that knows just how evil Bush is should be allowed to vote without an ID. We need as many people, with that depth of critical-thinking, casting as many votes as possible, to protect the rest of us from our obviously unenlightened selves. Maybe they could airdrop absentee ballots into major US cities to ensure they give everyone the opportunity they deserve.
If you do not have a voter ID with a photo then you should be allowed to vote if two people vouch for you who do have voter ID with photos. If I show up with my daughter and she has a voter ID with her photo and she swears that I am her daddy and live on Elizabeth Avenue in Ferguson, then that should be good enough.
Gary T
More to the issue . . .
I sense that a lot of liberals think that libertarians are just disguised republiconservatives.
…
==================================
A new acronym has been born.
LINO.
Libertarian in name only.
Infiltration happens (RINO, DINO).
More to the issue . . .
I sense that a lot of liberals think that libertarians are just disguised republiconservatives.
Here is where a libertarian would be different than a conservative, at least my opinion as a libertarian.
They should not be making it harder for the average person to vote.
If they want to make the voter id tighter, then do it by biometrics, not by govt issued photo id.
This photo id crap obviously skews the average voter representation to richer, and/or more establishment oriented citizens.
It throws out people who decide for one reason or another to not engage with the system’s incorporation of everyone into its belly.
“At least Ginsburg admitted to her error.” – JT
A sign of intellectual honesty.
This case she dissents against is Bush v Gore lite, because it allows the appellate courts to inject themselves into the politics of elections under the guise of “not disrupting elections near an election.”
Which sends a signal to racist legislators as to when to pass legislation (just before an election).
It is part of the resurgence of symbolic racism (Symbolic Racism: A Look At The Science – 7).
This raises an interesting point. If you can change the decision or at least the reasoning of the decision, can you change the decision, therefore changing your vote?
It does lay open the quality of people they have clerking for the justices these days. This is such a basic issue that someone should have caught it. And we know that Ginsberg is not the one pulling the all-nighter.
There is a law review article which rightly or wrongly challenges the notion that supreme court opinions are cast in stone:
(Harvard Law Review Article, The (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions, 128 Harv. L. Rev.____, forthcoming 2014).