Federal Judiciary

Not that we have any hope of seeing such reasonable legislation in Illinois any time soon:

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.

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.

I think, given the number of things for which ID is now required by law, the state shouldn't be charging for them anyway.  And obtaining them (and other services) should be a lot more convenient and efficient, but those are concepts with which the Illinois Secretary of State's office is unfamiliar.

UPDATE:  Thoughts from our County Clerk:

This is a difficult issue.  I have a lot of sympathy for the views of those who find these laws to be burdensome.  And I’d hate to have people lose their right to vote because they happened to leave home without an ID.

However, on balance, with the overwhelming concern from the public about election fraud, I see voter ID laws as being a good idea.  We need to do more to give the public confidence that every vote is being counted and that only those people who are eligible to vote are able to vote.  Of course, any voter ID law should be accompanied by appropriate provisional voting provisions that ensure that people who inadvertently forget their identification are still allowed to vote and given a chance after the election to give their ID.

Seems reasonable to me.

This article http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/post-11.html#more  discusses how Alberto Gonzales has undermined federal prosecutions and undermined the effectiveness of the Justice Department.   

In a ruling that could have huge implications for Champaign Unit 4 Schools and the Consent Decree, the Supreme Court has limited the use of race when assigning students to public schools:

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected public school assignment plans that take account of students' race.

The decision in cases affecting schools in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The court split, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.

Right now, it's just a placeholder story.  I'll add more links and details as the stories hit the wires, but I wanted to create a thread for discussion.

UPDATE 9:45 AM:  This tidbit was in Tom Kacich's column yesterday (sorry, no link) and I thought it was interesting and pertinent here.

A Money magazine list of the best places to live shows that most highly rated communities have a large percentage of their young population attending public schools, the notion that a good public school system is essential to a community's health.  In Fort Collins, Colo., for example, 94.1 percent of students attend public schools.  In Naperville - the highest-rated community in Illinois - 94.5 percent of young people attend public schools.  But in Champaign, 81.8 percent attend public schools.  The percentage is even lower in Peoria (78.8 percent), Bloomington (76.2 percent) and Springfield (75.5 percent).

UPDATE 11:01 AM:  I've attached a copy of today's Supreme Court ruling, which was so kindly emailed to me by a friend.  I've not yet had time to read it.

UPDATE 11:23 AM: From an emailer:

It is interesting it makes a distinction which might be relevnt here in Champaign between using race to integrate in a district that is remediating a past harm under an order (read: consent decree) and one that is just doing it.  I think the bottom line may be that when the consent decree expires Champaign would have to quit using race as a determining factor in schools of choice placement.  It isn’t clear if they would have to anyway.  I guess I don’t know enough about how Champaign makes its placement determinations.  Although I am not sure anyone really does.

And, from the same emailer, this "money quote" from the opinion:

The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from “patently unconstitutional” to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it “racial diversity."

UPDATE: 2:45 PM:  The Wall Street Journal has this Q&A. 

What did the Court decide?
In a highly charged atmosphere in the court, the justices ruled 5-4 that the plans were unconstitutional. Four justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that race can never be a factor in these kinds of decisions, with the only exception being a remedy to official segregation. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fifth vote. Importantly, his concurring opinion didn’t reach as far as the plurality. He ruled that race can be a factor in some circumstances, although not to the extent as employed by the two school districts. Because his was the fifth and deciding vote, his more nuanced view could be the one that school districts look to in crafting new programs. It will also likely muddy how the decision is interpreted.

Who will it affect?
It will nix any school district with a similar plan — one in which race is used as a tiebreaker. Seattle, for example, used several factors if schools were oversubscribed, including whether the student had a sibling at the same school and whether they were white or “non-white.” The ruling could affect similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and could prompt districts instead to use other proxies, such as economic status, or to build schools in mixed neighborhoods.

Does it overturn Brown v. Board of Education?
No. But it does reflect a deep division over Brown, the 1954 decision that abolished official school segregation and the court’s most celebrated case. The plurality today says Brown means schools can’t look at race in any circumstances. It’s a formalistic view that says racial categories are inherently invidious, regardless of their purpose. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” said Chief Justice Roberts.

For the dissenters, Brown was designed to destroy an effective caste system that made blacks inferior, and communities today should be able to try different ways to promote integration. “To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown,” Justice Stephen Breyer said in dissent.

Archpundit says the WSJ has a error above (quoted from CapFaxBlog - I couldn't find it at ArchPundit):

The writer claims that Kennedy allows for race as a factor–he specifically says it cannot be a factor, but that other strategies may be pursued that produce diversity. That’s a huge difference and has very bad impacts on settled cases. I don’t think many of the writers have ever looked at a settlement agreement for a deseg case, but they almost always include race as a factor for several of the programs. This ruling seems to invalidate all of those programs. It’s incredibly sweeping if Kennedy sticks by his decision.

UPDATE 4:55 PM:  Here's today's NG story, done on a short deadline this morning:

A U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-based school assignment plans may not have an immediate effect on the Champaign school district, says a lawyer for black families in the district.

Carol Ashley, a Chicago attorney who represents the plaintiffs in the Champaign school district's consent decree case, said she is still reviewing the decision, but believes the district's schools of choice plan is permissible, because the district is still governed by the consent decree.
Advertisement

"Our case is completely different from the two before the court," she said.

Champaign school officials issued a statement that said they are still reviewing the court decision and how it may affect the district's practices. It said the school board will discuss the matter at a public meeting, after they've had the chance to meet with the district's lawyer.

In the cases before the court, the school assignment plans were voluntary. The Jefferson County, Ky., school district, in Louisville, had been subject to a desegregation decree, but it expired in 2000, a year before the district adopted its school assignment plan. The Seattle school district had never been subject to such a decree.

Ashley also noted the Champaign school district went through an adjudication process where the court found there were racial disparities and remedies, such as the schools of choice plan, were justified.

The Supreme Court today struck down a portion of the steaming pile of feces that is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act:

The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.

Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.

I'll have more later, but I'm awfully pleased that the First Amendment has regained a tiny shred of its intended importance.  I wonder what McCain's dying Presidential campaign will say?  He's going to have a hard time criticizing this ruling while still pretending that he'd appoint constructionist judges.

A recent tally by McClatchy Newspapers underscored this point: Thomas has spoken 281 words since court transcripts began identifying justices by name in October 2004. By contrast, Thomas' neighbor on the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer, has uttered nearly 35,000 words since January.

An article by VDH listing important tactical changes needed in Iraq if a troop surge is going to do any good.  Included in the list are such suggestions as going on offense, like the Ethiopians, and closing down the borders with Syria and Iran as much as possible.  I really like this guy.

And this from Walter Weber about potentially overturning the Flast decision which allows uninjured citizens to contest government expenditures that allegedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  "The normal rule in federal court is that a citizen can only file suit against the government if he’s been injured."  This would be a huge victory for religious conservatives should the Roberts Court actually do this.  It would also really fire up the left.

No test will be given, but good students will get their reading done :-)

Have a good weekend - Go Illini!

This from the National Review today. Our new Chief Justice Roberts sided with the 'liberals' on the court in favor of a plaintiff who's house was sold in a property tax auction. The man had moved out, but his wife (they were separated, not divorced) and daughter continued to live there and ignored the notices. Read the article for more details, but here is the key summation: And might Roberts end up again one day with Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg”â€Âif that foursome manages to get something right? I suppose. But something in that Unsuitable Quintet sets off tremors That quintet does set off tremors with me. Conservatives have been counting on the legacy of Bush's appointments to help our cause for years to come - now?

Someone requested topical open threads.  Use this one to discuss the Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings.

There's another contender for the vacant U.S. Attorney's spot in Central Illinois:  Congressman Ray LaHood's son.

Some people think they're so smart that one can't help but smile when they do something stupid.

I'm pleased, not the least because he seems to very pro-First Amendment:

In the 2001 case, the 3rd Circuit struck down on First Amendment grounds the anti-harassment policy adopted by the State College Area School District in Pennsylvania. The policy, which prohibited harassment on the basis of "one's actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other personal characteristics," had been challenged by two children who said they feared it would get them into trouble if they gave voice to their religious belief that "homosexuality is a sin."

The 3rd Circuit overturned the policy because, in Judge Alito's words, "there is no categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause." Alito's opinion also cited a 1969 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of public-school students in Iowa to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. In that ruling, Alito noted, the justices had said that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Hopefully, he feels similarly about the inappropriateness of the government regulating political speech via campaign finance "reform." 

My only reaction:  whew.

Bring on Janice Rogers Brown. 

Patrick Ruffini is trying to reassure me (and others) about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers.  Of particular comfort is this passage:

But, as usual, quite possibly the most important perspective comes from Hugh Hewitt, who posits that Miers would be particularly strong in the area of national security jurisprudence. Having been "present at the creation" in the war on terror, not cooped up in isolated Circuit Court chambers or rarefied law school classrooms, a Justice Miers would be unlikely to let Jose Padilla roam the streets, or open up the gates of Gitmo. Folks – that's at least as important as the social issues.

The national security issues are, for me, much more important than the social issues.

I am quite disappointed by the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United State Supreme Court.

In the past six months, it's almost as if President Bush decided that being conservative just isn't worth it, that the slings and arrows from the likes of Nancy Pelosi and CBS News are just too much.  And I'm increasingly unethusiastic about supporting a President who isn't interested in limited Federal Government, can't get spending under control and refuses to keep his promise to nominate justices "in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas" to the Supreme Court. 

Liberals will laugh at this, but if it wasn't for the successes in the War on Terror, including in Iraq, I don't know if I could continue to support President Bush.  This pick is just that disappointing.  That reaction, which seems to be ricocheting around the right side of the blogosphere this morning, also leaves me increasingly pessimistic about the results of the 2006 elections.  If the Republicans win, that will be a signal to them that everything to date has been acceptable.  And if the Democrats win, it will result in head-over-heels retreat in the GWOT.  On the Federal level, I'm left hoping for the emergence of a legitimate conservative party.  And in the absence of one, I don't know what I'll do in 2006.

The News-Gazette Sunday had an article that points out how Barack Obama has kept a low profile in Washington while maintaining rock star status across the country. Obama was able to go through last year's Senate race without raising any red flags regarding his liberal positions. Back to back scandals by millionaires Blair Hull and Jack Ryan gave Obama the luxury of campaigning as the nice guy and sweeping to a huge electoral victory.

So far, Obama hasn't shown any inclination to put his left foot to far forward. Aside from his rather odd comparison of his upper middle class roots with Abraham Lincoln's remarkably difficult life, Obama has made no missteps.

But now Obama has his first major vote to show Illinois voters just where he will align himself. If he votes against John Roberts for the Supreme Court, he will demonstrate that he is part of the fringe of the Democratic Party. If he votes for Roberts, he'll manage to hold onto the facade of moderation that much longer.

Obama was put into office by the far left wing of the Democratic Party. I'll be surprised if he bucks them and votes to put the eminently qualified Roberts on the bench.

If you've followed Illinois politics long enough, you know that Dick Durbin has flip flopped on abortion. He was elected to the U.S House as a conservative pro-life Democrat. Then, as he became ensconced in Washington, he did as so many other Democrats have done. He changed his position in order to make himself palatable on a statewide and national level. And like so many Democrats, his flip flop has degenerated into shrill negative attacks against those who held the positions on which Durbin was first elected.

Tim Russert today called him on it in beautiful fashion. Unfortunately, after sticking him, Russert allowed him to draw out the spear without a followup thrust.

Durbin conceded that his position had changed. Here is his rather bizarre reason which shows a shockingly immature way of decision making.

"But I was really discouraged when I came to Washington to find that the opponents of abortion were also opponents of family planning. This didn't make any sense to me. And I was also discouraged by the fact that they were absolute, no exceptions for rape and incest, the most extraordinary medical situations. And I finally came to the conclusion that we really have to try to honor the Roe vs. Wade thinking, ..."

So Durbin used to be pro-life, but he didn't like the attitude of other people who were pro-life so he changed his position? I'm not shocked at this, just shocked that he admitted it. Durbin as much as announced that he bases important public policy decisions like abortion on personalities, not on what is right or wrong.

I hope Durbin continues to get run in front of the cameras. After the 2002 election I didn't think there was a chance to ever beat him. But as he continues to drift deeper into the left wing of the Democratic party I can't help but think that the relatively moderate people of Illinois will rebel.