Liberal Supreme Court Justice David Souter – A Living Example Of Hypocrisy

The Supreme Court affirmed today the common sense idea that the Indiana State Law, which simply states that a voter must provide a valid picture identification proving their identity before casting their ballot, is an obvious necessity to validate and affirm the propriety of elections within the state. Even liberal Justice John Paul Stevens admits that Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process’".

Stevens said that Indiana’s desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system was just cause for implementing their ID system. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing to uphold the law: "Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago mayor — though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."  For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver’s license serves as the identification.

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court’s 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law should encourage the remaining states to finally adopt their own safety measures.

All this common sense and majority understanding, however, did not hold back the Supreme Court’s (arguably) most liberal justice – David Souter – from throwing out yet another ultra-hypocritical condemnation. Justice Souter proclaimed Indiana’s voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens". The targets of the law, he said, are "voters who are poor and old.". If you will think back a few years, it was the very same Justice David Souter whose vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" case allowed a government entity to take land from one private owner (likely poor and/or old) and give it
to another if the government will either confiscate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits as a result. This is the famous case now commonly referred to as "Eminent Domain".

Apparently Justice Souter is only concerned with "poor and old" people when it means possibly depriving a vote for his favored Democrat party – the same party which stands for stealing their private land. He’s such an "unbiased" justice, don’t you agree? What more "nontrivial burden on the citizens" could there be than being thrown out of your home so the government can get more money?!

Check out this response to Souter’s Land Theft vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel
Such a shame they weren’t able to pull it off…