Friday, October 20, 2006

The Arizona Voter ID law allowed by Supremes

"Surprising action on a Friday afternoon from the Supreme Court: The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's order that had enjoined Arizona's Voter ID law: the 6 page per curiam opinion is here. The gist of the Supreme Court's decision is that the Ninth Circuit enjoined the voter ID law with an entirely unreasoned 4-sentence order, and this was a no-no," according to the Volokh Conspiracy

I take it that "an entirely unreasoned 4-sentence order" means a decision given without giving a reason.


Blogger Dan Patterson said...

Reasonable. As in common sense, following a logical order, based upon precedent.

What is the response from the donks? How about the unreasonable and illogical news outlets? Any word about the action, or about how the decision will "disenfranchise" millions (MILLIONS I tell you! MILLIONS!!) of innocent workers and quasi-criminals who just want to be here to 'do the work Americans don't want to do'? You know, the little brown people that the progressives seek to make a perpetual underclass and semi-slave work force.

How dare the Supreme Court make such a foolhardy move. Why should someone who is a citizen of Meh-He-Co, or Iran, or France, or Mars be prevented from voting for a United States legislator? Don't they know that the wishes of the electorate, never mind their so-called "votes", don't matter to the likes of the elite pointy-headed oh-so-smarts?

Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel

10/20/2006 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

Dan, why don't you let us know what you really think about this.

10/20/2006 05:09:00 PM  
Blogger ledger said...

The timing of the infamous 9th circuit’s opinion is highly suspicious given the close proximity of the November Elections.

I am glad the Supreme Court gave the 9th district (LA district) a swift boot to the rear in this case.

It’s time for some restraints on liberal 9th district court.

The democrats and unparticular their mouth piece the NYT have been dealt a serious set-back in the obscure Judith Miller case regarding tipping-off a terrorists front group just before an FBI raid.

I will not go into the fine details (I have do so before) but I will say Judith Miller and Philip Shannon of the NYT times were charged with tipping off a terrorists front group just before the FBI raided the terrorists front group’s HQ (at the minimum this alerted the terrorists front group of the pending raid and at most could have resulted a booby trap situation for the FBI as they raided their offices).

The Justice department then attempted to get Miller’s phone records from the phone company but was denied that request via a court opinion that favored Miller’s confidential sources over the FBI ability to stop said tipping-off of terrorist’s suspects.

The stakes are quite high in the Miller case. If the NYT looses the Miller case they may be required to disclose the exact mechanism of their nice leak machine.

A reader of Power Line (who is also a lawyer) explains:

This is the case where NY Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon are alleged to have received confidential tips in advance of FBI searches of two foundations putatively acting as fronts for terrorist organizations. The reporters then allegedly tipped the two foundations to the imminent searches of their offices and the freezing of their assets. The government sought telephone and other records related to the reporters' confidential sources. The Second Circuit holding is in line with the holding of the D.C. Circuit in the earlier "Judith Miller" case. The opinion reads like a (narrow) victory for common sense.

See: Leo McGinty Letter to Power Line

[NY Sun notes]

The ruling, written by Judge Ralph Winter of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, holds that because the case involves an alleged tip-off, the reporters are not entitled to the extra protection often afforded to the press under the First Amendment.

The decision reverses a ruling by Judge Robert Sweet of U.S. District Court in Manhattan who ruled last year that the reporters had a qualified privilege under the First Amendment to maintain the confidentiality of their records...

The case entered the courts in 2004, when the Times learned that prosecutors from Chicago were seeking records of phone calls that Ms. Miller and Mr. Shenon had made during several weeks in 2001 — around the time they published stories on two Islamic charities with suspected ties to terrorists, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation. Prosecutors, led by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald have claimed that the two reporters had tipped off the groups about impending raids … The government has said the phone records are relevant to a grand jury investigation into who inside the government had originally tipped off the reporters

NY Sun on the Judith Miller case, Page 1

NY Sun on the Judith Miller case, Page 2

NY Sun on the Judith Miller case, Page 3

[Background on Judith Miller jailing and possible motives via a letter to Power Line]

...I always thought that Miller agreed to go to jail not to protect a dubious principle and a source who had already clearly released her from confidentiality in the Plame matter, but rather out of self-preservation, so that she could safely ride out the duration of the grand jury in jail without having to testify about the search warrant affair and her frankly criminal role in that. If my sense about this is correct, she caved once it was suggested that the grand jury could be extended for up to 18 more months. The absurdly public "release" from confidentiality recently restated by Scooter Libby gives her cover, but my hunch is that the real reason for her release from jail is the prosecutor's agreement to limit his questioning of her to the Libby contacts, which puts the search warrant matter off limits...

Her change of heart may have been prompted by the prosecutor's agreement to refrain from questioning her not about other sources in the Plame matter, but about another matter in which the same prosecutor filed a motion to compel Miller's testimony before the grand jury.

I wrote you about this several months ago. In a published decision, U.S.D.J. Robert Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) denied Fitzpatrick's motion to compel Miller to testify before a grand jury relating to a leak to Miller about a warrant issued to the FBI for a search of a New York Muslim charity's offices. A source leaked this information to Miller, who, incredibly, promptly contacted the Muslim charity and revealed the warrant prior to the search. Fortunately, no FBI agents were injured when they searched the offices the next day, in what clearly could have developed into a very dangerous situation… In opposing the motion Miller stated that she was contacting the charity to get its comments about an article she planned to write after the search had been conducted. In doing so, of course, she divulged the existence of the warrant and created a situation where the office could have been booby-trapped, or at minimum crucial evidence destroyed or removed. As an attorney, I found the facts of this case and Judge Sweet's reasoning so disturbing that I continue to be shocked, months later

See PL UPDATE: A New York lawyer has another theory, 80% down

10/20/2006 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger Robert Schwartz said...

" I take it that "an entirely unreasoned 4-sentence order" means a decision given without giving a reason."

IAAL. You are correct. SCOTUS chastised the 9th Circus for acting without having reviewed or responded the trial court's findings of fact. The 9th is a notoriously partisan and liberal court. This is a real embarrassment for them.

10/20/2006 07:44:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

The 9th is a notoriously partisan and liberal court. This is a real embarrassment for them.

Some folks can't even be shamed into changing.

10/20/2006 08:30:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

From the decision:

"It was still necessary, as a procedural matter, for the Court of Appeals to give deference to the discretion of the District Court. We find no indication that it did so, and we conclude this was error."

The Court of Appeals issued it's ruling BEFOREthe trial court had made it's findings of fact! The trial court's findings of fact say that it is "possible" that the plaintiffs may prevail, which isn't good enough for granting an interlocutory injunction. Basically, the 9th Circuuit Court of Appeals IGNORED the law of equitable relief and was in such haste to do so that it ignored the procedure of equitable relief, also.

10/20/2006 10:41:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Nothing new under the sun, and a court like the 9th circuit has an olde name, a "star chamber".

Maybe that's why the nobles hate the Bush so--they want a king to operate behind.

10/21/2006 12:52:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

This is the second time the Dem's latest tactic of having bought-and-paid-for judges issue "fatwa-laws" on issues important to them has blown up in their faces. The other was a refutation of a liberal Democrat judge who ruled that federal eavesdropping was "obviously in violation of the 4th Amendment". The 6th Court of Appeals begged to (unanimously) disagree, amid discussion of how the silly cow just made up her initial ruling with no references to law nor citations to back it up.

Now this ruling by the Supreme Court which specifically talks about "an entirely unreasoned 4-sentence order", which is the same thing as Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was dinged for in *her* judgment that wiretapping is unconstitutional.

Now if we can just get the judge who gave Lynne Stewart less than two years in jail for what is essentially treason against her country over-ruled and thrown out ...

10/21/2006 09:03:00 AM  
Blogger Abu Nudnik said...

I can't believe it took so long just to pass a law that you have to present ID to vote! I'm 54 and I don't remember it not being the case here in Canada. Naturally the system has to be safeguarded from fraud. It's not an insult to anyone to point to the possiblitly of fraud. Any party that opposes every measure to safeguard electoral integrity ought to be the focus of suspicion for reasonable people. The public doesn't just feel disenfranchized by fraud, it is since an illegal ballot cancels a legitimate one voting the other way.

10/21/2006 10:19:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger