I do not disagree that Posner is a well-respected jurist. However let me point out (from another article) - "The opinion released Friday has no immediate effect. The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked voter ID from taking effect in Wisconsin after a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals earlier that week had found that the law was constitutional. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether to take the Wisconsin case. Three Supreme Court justices dissented from the order that blocked the law from taking effect: Samuel Alioto, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
No it doesn't. It's a dissenting opinion to the appellate court's opinion which ruled the opposite. In short, it means nothing except that another aged judge has apparently gone soft in the head. These opinions are written by law clerks. He may not have even read it or didn't understand what was in it.
Posner's bizarre assertion that there is no vote fraud is laughable. From another thread: " One of the examples he cites is Wisconsin. In 2008, a 68-page Milwaukee Police Department report confirmed that in the last presidential election, claims that thousands “more ballots [were] cast than voters recorded were found to be true.” The report found that there had been an organized effort by political operatives from out of state to swing the election. It concluded “that the one thing that could eliminate a large percentage of fraud or the appearance of fraudulent voting in any given election is the elimination of the on-site or same-day voter registration system.” Gessler also point to Minnesota. A statewide watchdog group called Minnesota Majority scoured the 2008 election results and identified 1,099 felons who had voted illegally. Even though violators must essentially admit their crime before they can be charged, prosecutors managed to secure 177 convictions of fraud by felons. Such numbers matter — in 2008, Al Franken won his disputed Senate race by only 312 votes, and a local TV station found that nine out of ten illegal felon voters in that race said they had cast ballots for Franken. The Minnesota Majority report concluded that “while some ineligible felon voters registered in advance of the election and should have been flagged for challenge, the overwhelming majority who evaded detection used Election Day registration, which currently has no mechanism to detect or prevent ineligible voters.”
Appeals court unblocks Texas Voter ID law The State of Texas can use its new voter ID law again in next's month's election, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, putting on hold an order a district court issued just last week barring enforcement of the law. "Based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date, we STAY the district court’s judgment pending appeal," 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Edith Clement wrote, in a ruling joined by Judge Catharina Haynes (and posted here). "This is not a run-of-the-mill case; instead, it is a voting case decided on the eve of the election....The judgment below substantially disturbs the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins. Thus, the value of preserving the status quo here is much higher than in most other contexts." The third appeals court judge on the panel, Gregg Costa, agreed with the decision to stay the district court ruling, but did not join their opinion. He said he was troubled about the prospect of an election being held under discriminatory rules. "We should be extremely reluctant to have an election take place under a law that a district court has found, and that our court may find, is discriminatory," Costa wrote. However, he said it appeared the Supreme Court opposes federal court-ordered changes to election procedures on the eve of elections. "On that limited basis, I agree a stay should issue," he said. Clement and Haynes are appointees of President George W. Bush. Costa was appointed by President Barack Obama. On Thursday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales-Ramos ruled that Texas's voter ID law is unconstitutional and violates the Voting Rights Act by making it more difficult for minorities to vote. Her ruling followed a lengthy trial exploring the impacts of the voter-ID requirements, which were passed in 2011 and have been used in three elections prior to the one set to take place next month. Civil rights groups and the Justice Department were among those challenging the Texas law. They could ask the full bench of the 5th Circuit to restore the lower court's order. They could also ask the Supreme Court to step in.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I find it interesting that conservatives regularly complain about activist judges yet their intransigence on so many issues coupled with their reluctance to act on anything legislatively (at the federal level anyway) force the judiciary into the position of acting as virtual legislators. Just an observation.
Now democrats can continue with their voter fraud. Let me get this straight though. Blacks can stand in line for days waiting for a pair of Air Jordan tennis shoes to be released, paying hundreds of dollars, but it's so hard for them to get a state ID? Get the fuck out of here.
Interesting post. Obama tries to use the same justification for his arrogation of legislative power. The short answer is that we have a Constitution, and it specifies what each Branch can do. Legislating is expressly limited to the Legislative branch. There are no exceptions for cases where some federal judge really truly believes his personal policy is superior to the one enacted by the congress or not enacted. Failure to pass a law is also a legislative act, entitled to respect by the other Branches. Not with this crowd however, but listen to them squeal when one of their pet laws, like the unconstitutional Voting Rights Act, gets trimmed. The Drafters provided a ready solution for displeasure with the legislature. We have elections every two years. Judicial review of congressional enactments was very controversial. The first Chief Justice seized the power in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison. Over time it has proven troublesome, leading to various outrages, such as the courts instructing President Bush how to conduct a war.