Saturday, July 08, 2006

Dumb stupid judge

Identity Theft of the Worst Kind
A Georgia judge has issued a restraining order blocking Georgia's voter ID law, just two weeks before primary elections are held.    Superior Court Judge Melvin Westmoreland  ruled that requiring photos as proof of identity is an unconstitutional burden.

The law requires that every voter who casts a ballot in person provide a valid, government-issued photo ID. The state made such IDs available throughout the state, but former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, argued in court Thursday on behalf of two residents that the law would keep poor, elderly and minority voters from the polls.

The original Georgia law was struck down by a federal judge because ''it amounted to a poll tax.''  The legislature responded, and the photos are now free, and easily attainable.  Hell, the photographer will come to you if you can't do it on your own. 

Just a few days ago I commented on two commie gringas who somehow became Mexixan election observers.  One gushed enthusiastically over the simple and elegant voting procedure.

''There is a voter ID Card with photo which is compared to the photo in the master voting book.''

That struck me as hypocritical, at the least, since these same people are violently opposed to the same safeguards being implemented in their own country.  But, with their own fat out of the fire, common sense was allowed to rear its seldom seen head in this instance.  The complainant in the GA case,  Donkey Boy Roy Barnes, is so transparent in his argument that we see his underpants' stainage.  Why would  a photo ID requirement keep anyone from voting?  That's right -  if the photo isn't that of the voter.  I don't know if this judge is a political hack, or just a nincompoop, but this is ridiculous. 

THE SOLUTION

Liberals have for several years pushed the use of  ''jury nullification,'' where jurors simply ignore the law when considering guilt or innocence.  I'm suggesting that it's time for Judicial nullification, whereby any legislative and executive branch, acting in concert, can simply ignore the whims of a few jokers in black robes.  I'm sure there is 100% agreement on this point.  Right?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmm, lets see if I've got this straight.

It's a burden to show photo id to vote.

It's not a burden to:
1. be subjected to a background check
2. sign a 4473 under threat of perjury.
3. give two thumb prints
in order to exercise your 2A rights.

Time to gas up the B-52.

Francis W. Porretto said...

Jury nullification isn't a liberal idea. It's a libertarian idea. Indeed, the entire concept of a jury is premised on the juror's absolute right to vote however he pleases, regardless of any evidence, law, or instruction. It makes the jury a bastion against unjust laws, as well as a shield against corrupt prosecutors and judges.

Not many people are aware that Prohibition was repealed largely because juries were refusing en masse to convict accused bootleggers and moonshiners, regardless of the laws against their trades. Nevertheless, it is so.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Liberal-tarians, I'd say. I'll yield on the point, but I first came across it as a juror myself sitting on a dead-to-rights drug possession trial. The jury deadlocked after a pasty faced, pot smoking Jimmy Carter juror explained jury nullification, and induced another juror (both women, btw)to join her. I found her argument ''I refuse to recognize that law,''fraught with dangerous consequences. It is also, of course, one of the gambits used to spring O.J. Simpson, and black juries have been lobbied hard on the issue. At any rate, it was here used to introduce my notion of Judicial Nullification ... also fraught with road hazards, but now I'm pissed off.

Anonymous said...

Something has to be done torein in asshole judges like this.It is a struggle where they want to impose there will over the legislators trying to do the will of the people by inacting a law to stop voter fraud. This damn judge should be kicked off the bench.

Anonymous said...

Jury nullification goes back a lot longer than Prohibition- probably the most noteworthy cases of this occurred during the 1850's, when Northern juries refused to endorse the Federal Fugitive Slave Law and return escaped slaves to the South. At bottom, jury nullification rests on freedom of conscience; the only thing that can be done to prevent that is to just impanel 12 people and have a directed verdict....and that brings things full circle to the current problem: activist judges in a Judiciary that is spinning out of control, increasingly arrogating to itself the functions of the other two branches of government.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Well done. Stay after school for uce cream. :))

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.