If you want to vote in Indiana, you need a valid photo I.D. Despite protestations by Democrats and liberal "civil rights groups" that such a draconian measure would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots, the Supreme Court held that a requirement of valid identification disenfranchises no one: The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Unsurprisingly, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. The ACLU is "extremely disappointed" by the decision, which comes a week before the Indiana primary elections. Any time the ACLU is disappointed, it's a win for Americans.
Closer to home - and isn't this just the pits? - a poor Portland lawyer lives with "perpetual jet-lag" because every few weeks, he boards a plane in Portland and flies to the Middle East to meet with a high-profile Saudi client who cannot enter the United States because he faces charges here of financing terrorism.
Golly, there's a heart-wrenching tale. Poor ol' Thomas Nelson is afraid that the US government is monitoring his phone and email simply because his client is charged with financing terrorism. Good grief, you'd think that the poor guy was in league with a serial killer! Across the country, and especially here in Oregon, it seems, lawyers who represent suspects in terrorism-related investigations complain that their ability to do their jobs is being hindered by the suspicion that the government is listening in. Let's see: they have no proof, yet complain that they can't do their jobs because they suspect that the government is paying attention to their clients - who happen to be suspected of financial or other involvement in terrorist activities. Well, you can see why the lawyers would be complaining. Souter and Ginsburg must be absolutely livid.
Recent Comments