Repub Federal Judge Who Approved Photo ID Law in 2008 Writes Devastating Dissent AGAINST Such Laws

[BradBlog]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by bluesbassman (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: BRAD BLOG



Reagan-Appointed Federal Judge Who Approved First Photo ID Law in 2008 Writes Devastating Dissent AGAINST Photo ID Voting Restrictions
Judge Richard Posner: 'If the WI legislature says witches are a problem, shall WI courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?'...

If you read just one top-to-bottom dismantling of every supposed premise in support of disenfranchising Photo ID voting restrictions laws, let it be this one!

It is a dissent, released on Friday, written by Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana's) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner's ruling was affirmed.

If there was ever evidence that a jurist could change their mind upon review of additional subsequent evidence, this is it. If there was ever a concise and airtight case made against Photo ID laws and the threat they pose to our most basic right to vote, this is it. If there was ever a treatise revealing such laws for the blatantly partisan shell games that they are, this is it.

Posner's dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10867

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10867

[Moonwalk]

1. K&R! AWESOME READ! Wish I could recommend it over and over again. My Fave part...

Voter Fraud (of this kind) is "more than a dozen times less likely [to happen] then being struck by lightning." —quoting Richard Sobel's research.

I think I'm in love!

[BradBlog]

3. Me too...

"I think I'm in love!"

Gotta say, thought the same damned thing while I was reading this thing...

[Stuart G]

2. k and r..no text

[WillyT]

4. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[AzDar]

5. K & R

[Fred Sanders]

6. Witches and liars, the judgment has it all....

"The panel is not troubled by the absence of evidence. It deems the supposed beneficial effect of photo ID requirements on public confidence in the electoral system "'a legislative fact'-a proposition about the state of the world," and asserts that "on matters of legislative fact, courts accept the findings of legislatures and judges of the lower courts must accept findings by the Supreme Court." In so saying, the panel conjures up a fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary.

As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it's a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court-do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel's interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly."

[Scuba]

7. Thanks Brad, widely shared.

[The Magistrate]

8. Thank You For Sharing This, Sir

Judge Posner is an honorable man, of great intelligence.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. What

took him so long? A lot of us already *knew* it was a bad idea to begin with, not to mention unnecessary. His dissent is welcome but now voter ID is being pushed everywhere around the country. How do we dismantle these laws, particularly since SCOTUS has, I believe, upheld them as well?

[BradBlog]

13. Read his dissent...

Read the dissent (or, at very least my summary as linked above.)

SCOTUS has only (conditionally) approved Photo ID restrictions one time, Indiana's Crawford v. Marion County in 2008. That was the case which Posner initially upheld and, essentially, admits here that he got it totally wrong.

In Crawford, SCOTUS did not find the law Constitutional. Rather, they said that, based on the record in that particular case, they had no evidence anybody had been disenfranchised, but invited plaintiffs to return with such evidence at a later date. Both Roberts and Kennedy signed on to that part of the SCOTUS opinion, agreeing that if evidence showed the law burdened voters more than it served any compelling governmental interest, it was likely to be struck down in the future.

That's a VERY brief summary of the previous SCOTUS case, finding that the law "on its face" was unconstitutional, but might be "as applied". (With my apologies in advance to actual legal scholars who might be able to explain it more accurately or concisely!)

A hearing on the "as applied" cases, such as in WI, TX, etc., are likely still to come at SCOTUS. This was the first chance that Posner had to revisit the issue in a case coming before his 7th Circuit. So, essentially, that's what "took him so long"

[MontyPow]

10. Oops, I made a mistake. My bad.

[Fred Sanders]

12. Please read his judgement or excerpts, it is so much more than that, it is a change of mind based on

evidence, evidence meeting the standards of a court of law and presented to the court, not just to the court of public opinion that has no standards of evidence, this is the kind of change we should all be applauding.

[MontyPow]

15. Because his first ruling was not in a court of law?

And you can't draw conclusions about future behavior based on past behavior?

I'm really glad he appears to have grown intellectually over the past six years. It does not excuse what his small mind helped to unleash back in 2008.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Is the the same Posner that was involved in an alleged assault in Chambers on another Judge, once

well loved by Walker and who barely beat out a progressive candidate a couple of years ago?

If so it appears facts, logic, statistics and common sense we liberals all love and embrace CAN be an influence.

[BradBlog]

14. No, you're thinking of WI STATE judge Prosser

You're thinking of WI state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, a close ally of Scott Walker's. (Choking incident you reference is detailed here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8673)

This is federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, a Ronald-Reagan appointee to the federal bench and "the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century" (by far), according to the Journal of Legal Studies.

[Gothmog]

16. Posner wrote an amazing dissent

Posner is considered by some to be one of the most conservative judges on the federal bench and even more conservative than Scalia. The major difference is that Posner is not a religious nutcase and is also honest

[bluesbassman]

17. Locking. Host consensus is that this is an opinion piece.

Please consider reposting in GD or Good Reads.