Law School Conservative

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS INDIANA VOTER ID LAW WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today 6-3 in favor of the Indiana Voter ID law which requires registered voters to present a valid form of identification when they go to the polls. Since early voting is already in progress in Indiana for their primary, this law is much needed in the state's efforts to eliminate voter fraud. In an amicus brief submitted by The American Civil Rights Union on this case, General Counsel Peter Ferrara explains that, "No one has been denied the right to vote by the Indiana Voter ID Law. The record clearly establishes without challenge that 99% of the Voting Age Population in Indiana already has the required ID, in the form of driver's licenses, passports, or other identification." The ACRU supports the Indiana law because it protects, rather than infringes, the rights of legitimate voters, by helping to ensure that their votes are not watered down by illegal voters. The full report can be found here. ### You can read ACRU's amicus brief by going here

Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal's Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama's comments are.

According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans.  They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others. 

Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I've met, I'd say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it's not because we feel let down that the government hasn't taken good care of us. It's because we feel the government won't let us take care of ourselves!

But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that's designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals. 

The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them. 

By a vote of 6-3, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Indiana Voter ID Law, which required voters there to establish who they are and that they are legal residents of Indiana before they vote. Similar laws have been passed in several other states. The ACLU has been fighting such laws in many jurisdictions, because the ACLU believes in open borders for illegal aliens, who can get drivers licenses and even register to vote, absent such laws. * * * * The facts but not the legal conclusions for this article come from an article by Greg Stohr on Bloomberg.com on 28 April, 2008. Today (28 April) the Supreme Court ruled that Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo IDs in order to vote, is constitutional. There is a serious factual error in the original story, however. Justice Stevens, who normally votes with the "liberal" side of the Court, voted to uphold the law and wrote the main opinion. The Bloomberg article says that his personal decision avoided "a 5-4 split... along ideological lines" as in Bush v. Gore concerning the 2000 election. Actually, the vote on the Court in Bush v. Gore was 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the First Amendment in that election. Many members of the mainstream media, in order to favor the Gore position, said that it was "a 5-4 decision" to make it look both closed and more ideological. That error is, unfortunately, repeated by Bloomberg. In the lead Opinion, Justice Stevens writes that the possibility of voter fraud is "very real" and that states have " a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined in Stevens' Opinion. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito agreed with the result, but would have granted states even more leeway in acting against voter fraud. Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer filed two Dissents, one by Souter and the other by Breyer. They argued that the Indiana law "imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden." This is the ACLU argument made in this and several other cases. This argument is now dead. The real interest of the ACLU seems to be maintaining drivers' licenses, and the right to vote (through the Motor-Voter Law) for illegal aliens in the US. The Indiana law, and similar laws in Georgia and elsewhere, will cut down on the number of illegal aliens who vote, and who drive. Justice Scalia in his Concurrence chided Justice Stevens for his main Opinion, for leaving the door open for more litigation against state voter ID laws, based on facts rather than the basic theory that states are responsible for state election laws. Source for original story on the Net: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6YsoNXb356s&refer=home

The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won't enforce them. But Nutter says he's going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances. 

What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they're probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:

"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don't get our way isn't going to solve [violent crime] problems. It's just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we're a lawless city."

As she points out, the City Council's actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don't care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law?

The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama's problem with gun owners.  Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico's Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead. 

The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn't just fund gun-banners. 

Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We're not promoting a particular solution. We're promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them."  That's baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never. 

The shameless attempts to disguise Obama's record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn't know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It's forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can't even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can't let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article on Fox News on April 18. "In God We Trust" is the official Motto of the United States. It appears on coins and bills produced by the Treasury. It is also the motto of Florida, where it is also under attack by the ACLU. The first appearance of that slogan in public is in the fourth stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner," which has also been officially adopted, as the National Anthem. In many state and federal courts, the ACLU has launched attacks on the use of this motto in public. All such attacks, in the US Supreme Court and elsewhere, have failed. The latest failure is in Indiana. That state decided to permit residents, by their own choice, to have license plates which bear this motto. These were offered for the same price that regular Indiana license plates are provided to residents of that state. Marion Superior Court Judge Gary L. Miller issued a summary judgment against the ACLU on its challenge to these license plates on 10 April. In his decision, the Judge said: "Courts are not to second-guess the Indiana General Assembly when it comes to calculations of this sort...." The Plaintiff, who was the stalking horse for the ACLU in the case, had challenged the fact that his Environmental Trust plate from Indiana had an extra charge associated with it, whereas, the motto plate did not. The Legal Director of the ACLU said they were "disappointed" and would appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The bottom line is that the ACLU attacks every instance where the word "God" appears in public, as if passing strangers would be turned into fundamentalist Christians from simply seeing that word. The US Supreme Court has long since ruled that the National Motto is constitutional, which is why cases like this are allegedly based on other criteria, such as the fact that the use of this plate is free, as well as voluntary. The antagonism of the ACLU to any reference to the religious heritage of America is deep and long-standing. It is hoped that the Court in this case will impose major fees and costs on the ACLU and its attorneys for bringing a frivolous action in this case. Source for this article on the Internet: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html

For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper's news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.

Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won't press charges.

"I'm not inclined to press charges. While my assailant's actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn't kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."

So if a rapist tells you he's going to rape you, doesn't use "much more force than was needed," doesn't rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?

Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he'll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man. 

I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn't just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer.

Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost. 

It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone's ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn't stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step." 

You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That's right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state's "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that's a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it.