Senior Citizens Ordered To Quit Saying Grace Before Meals

Want to say grace before a meal? Not so fast. That is the message given to some senior citizens at a nursing home.

But Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state.

On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center was traded in for a moment of silence.

Being raised in the south seeing people say grace before a meal is so woven into the fabric of life that I doubt many folks even give it a second thought and they certainly don't ponder the ramifications of what that action could mean just because the meal they are about to eat is somehow funded by the federal government. In fact I think the attitude may very well turn to telling the nursing home to cut the contract and if all they have to eat is pork and beans and macaroni and cheese, well then so be it.

This is just further evidence of what life is like under the heel of government which wants to protect you from cradle to grave. The problem is trying to figure out just what it is they are trying to protect you from.

For the record their is no separation of church and state. That whole thing came about because of letter Thomas Jefferson wrote one time that was then cited in a 1878 case involving a Mormon and his claim that bigamy was allowed under the Mormon religion. In fact part of the quote was misinterpreted.

"the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions", Jefferson's original handwriting reads "the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.".

Hatch: Hey, How About Supreme Court Justice Hillary?

Doesn't this present an interesting quandary? Do we support getting her out of State, thereby preventing any further bungling incompetence and alienation of our allies? Or is the risk of having her on the Supreme Court for life too much to bear?

Big upside: The robe will prevent us from seeing those hideous pantsuits and believe me, that's a huge plus.

Sen. Orrin Hatch says he's heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name mentioned in connection with the Supreme Court vacancy brought about by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

Hatch didn't elaborate in an interview Monday. Appearing with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on NBC's "Today" show, the Utah Republican said only, "I heard Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix."

Hatch wouldn't say whether he'd support Clinton. But he did say "I like Hillary Rodham Clinton" and said he thinks she's done a good job for Democrats.

Let's face it. She'd breeze through confirmation hearings since she's a known commodity. It would also spare Obama any further political damage rather than going the far left route that's sure to rifle feathers in an already heated atmosphere.

Unless he's really itching for a fight, it would be a safe pick. Whether her legal acumen is up to snuff we'll let the lawyers out there decide that. Any thoughts?

Thanks to Hot Air for the link.

Dems Pushing Constitutional Amendment To Overturn The First Amendment

The progressives in the congress are in high dander over the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law. It really was a matter of free speech and not corporate financing like the progressives are trying to paint it. I knew when I saw the extension on the web address, i.e., the dot org rather then the traditional dot com, that this was a far left liberal site. That is one of the surest signs of a liberal site, just like the media not mentioning a party affiliation in the reporting of a scandal automatically triggers a intuitive guess that it involves a Democrat.

Well they have taken the next illogical step, mainly proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment. The amendment is being cosponsored by Donna Edwards (D-MD) and John Conyers (D-MI) among others.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

John Kerry, fearing for his Senate seat maybe, and making an appeal to the far left in his party went even a little further.

I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals.

So who is it that contributes to Ms Edwards Campaign? The usual suspects, unions and SEIU in particular.



As for John Conyers, well he doesn't seem to have a problem taking campaign donations from some of those evil corporations. Among the list of contributors to his campaign are Microsoft and Comcast.



Don't you just love the hypocrisy?

Open Secrets has modified their page which displays the biggest contributors to political campaigns. They removed the name of who it is that receives the most from the various industries.

Guess it is a good thing I got a screen shot, huh?

Democrats Guaranteeing Their Legislation Is Ruled Unconstitutionial

How freaking stupid have you got to be? The Democrats not content to just let Barry O take a cheap shot at the Supreme Court have decided to follower their Dear Leader's lead and are continuing their denigration of the court.

Guys this ain't real smart from several points of views. The first might be that any conservative leaning judge who was entertaining the notion of retiring will probably put those plans on hold for awhile, thereby guaranteeing a conservative majority.

Second, even some of the liberal judges may take umbrage with attacks upon the institution that they represent and throw a few votes over to the conservative side to send a message.

Thirdly, any legislation you do manage to pass and get the president to sign is just ripe for the picking by anybody who files a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that legislation. I wonder which way that case would get decided?

President Obama's public undressing of the robed Supreme Court justices seated in front of him at the State of the Union address turned heads and drew rebukes from Republicans.
But his words were downright genteel compared with what's been said on the Senate floor the past two days. Democrats on Capitol Hill accused conservative court members of deciding cases specifically to benefit the Republican Party.

I am getting real tired of the whining from the Democrats. My god you would think the whole world is against them and they just can't get anything done, even though they hold majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency. In fact they gained control of the House of Representatives in the last two years of the Bush presidency, and still they whine about how Republicans block them.

On Thursday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the ruling on corporate election spending a "threat to the rule of law" and said it is one example of "a willingness of a narrow majority of the Supreme Court to render decisions from the bench to suit their own ideological agenda."

Of course Mr Leahy couldn't be bothered with the name of the legislation, which was the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. Last time I checked McCain was still a Republican.

Dems it is time to grow up. Quit your damn whining, face the fact that you are in charge, and quite frankly, your ideas suck which is why most sane people who aren't popping a handful of pills to deal with their psychiatric problems reject them out of hand.

The liberal lawmakers have attacked the average citizen, their counterparts in congress and now they are assailing the Supreme Court who is a separate but equal branch of our government. These sort of displays are simply pathetic and speak very poorly of any adult, much less of somebody who was elected and is being paid by the taxpayers.

BTW for all of the whining and crying by the Democrats about how somehow this decision by the Supreme Court in someway benefits the Republicans is all horse manure. In reality what it is, is an attempt to get that message out there to draw attention away from who really benefits from this provision being struck down.

The big boss might want to take a second look at his campaign funding reports also.

Liberals Poised To Gain Most From Supreme Court Ruling On Campaign Finance

By now most folks are aware of the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court yesterday which struck down portions of the horribly crafted McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill as it relates to political campaigns receiving donations from corporate entities.

As expected, The Democrats are continuing to flog that horse known as bashing big business. They want you to believe that anything even remotely related to private business in this country are nothing more then the handmaidens of the evil Republicans.

In one way this makes sense for the Dems, since they put all their trust in government, and can't get enough of it. On the other hand, they get all bent out of shape when their precious government lets them down.

Well before the Dems spend too much more time and precious air time railing against this decision they just might want to check who gets the most from corporate America to fill their campaign coffers.

Of the Top 50 groups contributing to political parties one, AND ONLY ONE, contributes more to the Republicans than they do the Democrats, and even for them (Gas/Oil) their number one recipient is a Democrat.

So Chuck Schumer, Alan Grayson, and the rest of wealth envy crowd might want to think twice about hollering fire in a theater.

Grayson No Doubt Thinks The Nav'i Are Real Too

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is really going off the reservation trying to create some sort of Don Quixote-type quest.

At issue is a case the Supreme Court is expected to pass a ruling on concerning a group known as Citizens United. A summary of the issue, which I got from Slate Magazine is this:

Citizens United produced an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary. The group wanted to air the documentary during the 2008 presidential primary season through a cable television "video on demand" service and to advertise for it on television. In exchange for a $1.2 million fee, a cable television operator consortium would have made the documentary available to cable subscribers to download free "on demand," as part of an "Election '08" series. Citizens United is an ideological group (like the NRA or Planned Parenthood), but it takes for-profit corporate funding. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law passed in 2002 bars certain corporate-funded television broadcasts, such as this documentary, in the period before an election.

The barely in touch with reality representative from Florida, through some sort of pretzel logic is trumpeting his promotion of some bills he has proposed to deal with an issue that has already been addressed in previous legislation concerning political campaigns accepting donations from corporate entities.

It's accurate that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal.

While he is at it, Grayson might want to check with the boss. It seems that during the most recent presidential campaign nobody received more money from big business then Barack Obama.

The episode underscores the pitfalls confronting a candidate who rails against special interests while raising $193 million and counting — the most of any presidential campaign.

Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money."

Barry O's acceptance of money from lobbyists and corporate PAC's has been a constant throughout his entire political career.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

The Supreme Court is having a session at 10 am this morning and they are expected to issue a final ruling on the case Citizens United vs The Federal Election Commission case. The real issue is where do free speech rights end and our election laws created by the notorious McCain Feingold campaign finance legislation begin.

I would think the liberals have already answered this question by the promotion of their idiot savants like Michael Moore with his endless stream of undocumentary films and others in the entertainment industry who became so obsessed and consumed with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they lost touch with any sense of what the average American was really concerned about.

I think what Grayson is really upset about is that an organization received corporate financing to produce a film that portrayed a Democrat in a bad light instead of using the established and traditional medium of choice: our mainstream journalists and news media.

Besides, if Grayson has his way, I think that would pretty much kill MSNBC and their progressive talking heads. You know, since they are liked owned by GE.

The only thing that seems certain is that there must be quite a few folks in his district who suffer with Alzheimers. There is no other decent explanation for how somebody like this gets elected to Congress.

Only 45% Favor Sotomayor's Confirmation

That leaves 55% who think she's unqualified or who have no clue what's going on.

Of course despite only 45% saying she should be confirmed, 87% say she will be confirmed. Nothing like rolling over and putting an obvious hack on the Supreme Court.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of voters nationwide believe Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. That figure includes 59% who believe her confirmation is Very Likely.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just five percent (5%) say her confirmation by the Senate is unlikely.

Forty-five percent (45%) favor confirmation of Sotomayor, who, if approved by the Senate, will be the first Hispanic member of the high court. Twenty-nine percent (29%) oppose her confirmation, and 26% are not sure.

Most Democrats favor confirmation while most Republicans are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 41% favor confirmation, and 29% are opposed. Hispanic voters favor confirmation by a 66% to 15% margin.

Wow, 15% of Hispanics think she's unqualified? Don't tell the media.

More Change You Can Believe In: Obama Seeks to Limit Defendants' Rights

It'll be interesting to see how far this one flies under the media radar.

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Didn't we hear incessant howling for eight years about how Bush was conducting an assault on civil rights?

Where is the drumbeat of outrage?

The administration's action - and several others - have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

So an opinion written by liberal darling John Paul Stevens is now to be kicked to the curb?

Why? Does Obama not believe in the right to counsel before interrogation? I guess not.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."

Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Apparently, Obama doesn't care about the poor.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

No doubt the media will be howling tonight about this gross threat to civil rights.

Welcome to Obamaland, where there's more concern for the welfare of terrorists than for the average American.

Change!

Some background from SCOTUS Blog.

Faced With Plummeting Approval Ratings; Supreme Court Finally Issues Coherent Decision

How's this for coincidence? On the morning they awoke to a 26% approval rating, the Supreme Court finally issued a decision that doesn't fly in the face of all logic and decency.

For the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that individual Americans have the right to own guns for personal use, and struck down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital.

The landmark 5-4 ruling marked the first time in nearly 70 years the country's high court has addressed whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a right tied to service in a state militia.

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You suppose them giving rights to terrorists had anything to do with their 26% approval? Of course it does. I surmise if you poll them again after yesterday's decision on the child rapists it would be even lower.

Curiously, after today's ruling on the Second Amendment, the country's leading proponent of gun control--the unctuous Charles Schumer--is unavailable for comment for the first time in his life.

Hmmm.

Still, what's disturbing is there are still four idiots on the high court who don't believe in the Second Amendment. They should be thankful five of their brethren saved them from facing an armed insurrection in this country.

Liberal Supreme Court Justices: No Death Penalty For Kiddie Rapers

I didn't even have to read the story to know how they voted. But if you really need to know, here's the link.

Memo to the clueless GOP: They just gift-wrapped another issue for you.

Kiddie rapists and liberals: Perfect together.

Update: Seem at least someone on the left is upset about how this story is presented.

Update II: Michelle Malkin has the stomach-churning details of what the monster in question did. Obviously it's not enough for the left. Criticize them and they wish you dead, rape a child and get three squares and free cable for life.

Supreme Court Rules Terrorists Now Have Constitutional Rights

Naturally, this cockamamie ruling is portrayed as a defeat for George W. Bush rather than a defeat of common sense and logic.

Terrorist sympathizers must be kvelling over this. Maybe they should see if they're allowed to vote this November.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The vote was 5-4, with the court's liberal justices in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some who have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

If you don't think elections matter, just imagine who the radical Barack Obama would put on the Supreme Court.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Memo to the GOP: You just had an issue gift-wrapped with a nice bow on top: Start using it against the Democrats today.

Ruling against America were Justices Steven Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Those in favor of protecting America from the Islamofascist animals were Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Update: The Great One checks in.

It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court's disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for "the Bush administration." Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.

More from SCOTUSBlog.

Michelle Malkin: "What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves."

More also at Volokh Conspiracy, Ace of Spades HQ.

Supremes Uphold Child Porn Law: ACLU, NAMBLA Hardest Hit

Just imagine how the New York Times would report a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ruling in favor of the Bush administration. It would, of course, be hailed as a crushing defeat, or a harsh blow to the forces of evil.

Yet here you have an item noting today's 7-2 ruling upholding a federal law against child pornography, and the two biggest proponents of it aren't even mentioned.

How convenient.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a 2003 federal law aimed at child pornography, concluding in a 7-to-2 opinion that a federal appeals court was wrong to find the law unconstitutionally vague.

The law in question arose from a sensible, constitutionally acceptable approach by Congress to correct faults that the high court found in an earlier child-pornography law, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.

“Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens,” Justice Scalia wrote. “Both the state and federal governments have sought to suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the new medium of the Internet.”

The ruling scathingly rejected contentions that the 2003 legislation was so broadly written that it could make it a crime to share or even describe depictions of children in explicit sexual situations, even if the depictions are inaccurate, the children do not really exist and the intention is innocent.

Invalidation of a law because it is thought to be too broad is “strong medicine” that is not to be “casually employed,” Justice Scalia wrote, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings and declaring that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had employed the strong medicine too casually in the case at hand.

Monday’s decision in United States v. Williams reinstated the conviction of Michael Williams of Florida, who was caught in a federal undercover operation in April 2004 and found guilty later of “pandering” child pornography, a charge defined in part as promoting or distributing real or “purported” material in a way that reflects the belief — or is intended to persuade another — that the material is indeed child pornography.

Oh, and if you thought elections don't mean anything, check out how the justices voted.

Joining the opinion were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, with Justice Souter writing that promoting images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be prosecuted under the law at issue.

Meanwhile, the ACLU is looking for new (ahem) leadership.

Sorry, Sister: ID-Less Nuns Denied Vote in Indiana, NYT Wails

Look at the bright side, the nuns have until November to work something out in time for the general election.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives [sic].

They're positively hysterical at the NYT Editor's Blog.

The Supreme Court last month upheld Indiana’s harsh voter ID law, which requires voters to present government-issued photo ID — something many registered voters don’t have.

The Justices were blithely unconcerned about the many people who would lose their voting rights as a result of their decision. And they seemed skeptical that such people even existed.

“‘[T]he evidence in the record does not provide us with the number of registered voters without photo identification,” the lead opinion said. The court did not find the evidence it wanted of “the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.”

They conveniently fail to note liberal stalwart John Paul Stevens authored the opinion.

And since when did they care the slightest bit about anyone in the church?

The nuns were only a few of the people in Indiana deprived of their right to vote today.

Where is the evidence to support that assertion?

Nobody is being deprived of any rights. By law you must show valid identification and it's clearly spelled out, caterwauling from the NY Times pinheads notwithstanding.

If activists were so concerned about rights being deprived they would have been prepared for an opinion to go against them and had a Plan B.

Instead, they don't get carte blanche from the Supreme Court to commit widespread voter fraud and we're left with tear jerking stories of 98-year-olds nuns.

Of course, if the folks at the Times just read reputable papers in their own city, they'd know they're well, full of it.

Indiana took this seriously in 2005 and landed in court. But the state also made it as easy as possible to get identification. A state photo ID is free for the poor. Critics complain that the prerequisite, a birth certificate, costs money. But the law says older people, those most likely to lack such a paper, don't need it. They can use their Medicare cards or a half-dozen other documents. Lacking any, a voter simply can swear to a court clerk that he's broke. Critics are reduced to saying the lack of universal bus service to the license office is a grievous barrier.

"There's always some incidental costs to voting — you can't come to the polls naked," an Indianapolis law professor, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, who served on the task force that wrote the rules, says. The remarkable thing is that for all the talk of disenfranchisement, Indiana has had seven elections since, and those challenging the law have yet to turn up a plaintiff who credibly can say the law stymied him, Mr. Hakim-Shabazz says.

But the AP sure found some old nuns in a hurry.

Update: Michelle Malkin links. Thanks! She's got a great roundup tonight.

Horror! Indiana Voters Must Show Photo ID

A regular constitutional crisis.

Now if we can only get this enforced in the other 49 states, there'd be a lot of dead Democrats no longer voting.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush mirrored.

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.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

mean old Republicans. How dare they want to enforce a common-sense law!

Update: Predictable reaction from one of the Kos Kidz.

In a case reflecting a solution truly in search of a problem, and opening the door to all sorts of harassment for minority, elderly and other traditionally Democratic voters, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 today that Indiana could legally require all voters to present photo identification cards in order to vote.

In other words, you better let us continue ballot fraud.

Assorted adult reaction here.

Supremes to Decide Photo ID Law; "May Deter Democrats From Voting"

It figures any move to legally show your true identity at the ballot box would have the Democrats up in arms.

They claim to want clean elections, so why should something so innocuous as a valid photo identification have them fretting?

Court to decide photo ID voting law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether voters can be required to show photo identification, a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections.

The justices, acting ahead of next year's national elections, said they would review Indiana's voting law, which is considered one of the most restrictive in the country. It requires voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport.

Now how exactly that's restrictive, they don't explain.

Democrats spend untold millions with their annual voter registration drives, how about taking the time between now and next November helping issue photo IDs?

Or are they afraid all those mysterious votes them seem to conjure up in certain precincts might suddenly disappear?

The 2005 law has been challenged by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Indiana Democratic Party, who charge it unfairly limits the right to vote, especially affecting the elderly, poor, disabled or homeless.

Opponents of the law said those people often can't afford the costs of obtaining identification documents or have trouble negotiating the bureaucracy involved in applying for them.

Well, cry me a river. If you're too lazy or incompetent to get a photo ID, then it's your problem that you may not be eligible to vote.

As if it weren't obvious enough such a law will affect Democrats most, this subhead should remove all doubt.

MAY DETER DEMOCRATS FROM VOTING

A U.S. appeals court upheld the law, acknowledging it would discourage some people from voting and was more likely to deter Democratic voters than Republicans.

Is that because maybe Democrats are more prone to voter fraud?

State Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said granting Supreme Court review of the issue now would likely prompt a spate of lawsuits across the nation that would disrupt the 2008 presidential primaries and create new uncertainty over the validity of all voter identification requirements.

He said the justices should wait for another case after the 2008 elections.

But the Supreme Court rejected that recommendation. It is expected to hear arguments in the case early next year, with a decision due by the end of June.

Fair enough. That will give these hapless Democrats more than four months to get off their asses and get a valid photo identification.

Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Redstate has the details.

A 5-4 decision. Elections do mean something. Expect much caterwauling from the left today. Also expect the media to studiously avoid the term "partial-birth abortion"; rather they'll use euphemisms such as "a procedure" and "late-term" to avoid any negative connotations being given to this incredibily gruesome and horrific means of terminating a child's life.

Other reaction from Sister Toldjah, Strata-Sphere, Hot Air, Right Voices.

Tale of Two Rulings

Media bias is never more obvious than with the reporting of the two Supreme Court rulings today. First, we have the Guantanamo Bay case from this morning, as noted earlier. Take the first paragraph of the story, which obviously favors the Bush administration.

A closely divided Supreme Court said on Monday it would not decide whether Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their confinement before U.S. federal judges, avoiding a test of President George W. Bush's powers in the war on terrorism.

Now, let's contrast how a closely divided court, which was actually 6-3, is portrayed in the cockamamie ruling on global warming.

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a U.S. government agency has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

By a 5-4 vote, the nation's highest court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change.

The ruling in one of the most important environmental cases to reach the Supreme Court marked the first high court decision in a case involving global warming.

So now a 5-4 vote isn't reported as closely divided, it's simply a defeat for the Bush administration. And the case which wasn't really all that closely divided, isn't that a defeat for the terrorist supporters from the ACLU?

Watch and see which of these cases gets more coverage on the networks, as if you have to guess.

More on the media reaction to the latter case at NewsBusters.

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Gitmo Appeals

Aww, the poor terrorists.

A closely divided Supreme Court said on Monday it would not decide whether Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their confinement before U.S. federal judges, avoiding a test of President George W. Bush's powers in the war on terrorism.

Over the dissent of three justices, the nation's high court said it would not rule on the constitutionality of part of an anti-terrorism law that Bush pushed through the U.S. Congress last year that takes away the right of the prisoners to get judicial review of their detention.

I hope this makes for a very bad day for our nation's enemies (looking your way, ACLU lawyers).

Via Sweetness & Light.