I blogged about this this morning, but the real scope of the ruling is just now being fleshed out, and a few things have occurred to me.

First of all, as I said earlier, this is a complete victory for common sense.  It just makes simple sense that if voting is the precious right and responsibility we think it is, it should be protected and cherished, and one facet of that is to ensure that only those eligible are allowed to vote, lest the franchise be corrupted by people who are not.

Some say that is exclusionary, but the fact is that voter criteria exists to protect the validity of the votes of all.   Protecting it by what seems to be the simplest method, checking ID, is a complete no brainer.

And yet there are the critics who decry this as unfair, as disenfranchising people, and targeted to eliminate minorities, also know as the race card.

Hog wash. 

They claim fraud is a myth, and that there is no compelling reason to protect against it.  Sure.  There is also no compelling reason your care will be stolen, so feel free to leave the keys in.

Locks and laws serve the same purpose:  To protect against criminals.  Voter fraud laws close the door on the easy loopholes and make it less likely. And in doing so they once again show how valuable the right to vote is, such that we want to be sure "you" are really "you" before you cast your vote.

The requirements are not a burden.  Since when is it odd to expect people to be able to prove their identity?

The ACLU opposes such laws which frankly puzzles me, though I admit it is hardly a shock.  They often take a contrary position to civil rights and common sense.

Note to the ACLU:  Committing a crime is not a right.  Look it up.

Told ya so.  Now, watch as the world comes unglued and the liberals implode that actual accountability is a part of voting.

 Via AP:

WASHINGTON - 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 prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

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. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

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, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Monday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

About freakin time.

Sister Toldjah notes:

The opinions can be read here. As expected, the usual corners are crying foul, believing “harassment” and “disenfranchisement” are just around the corner for poor and elderly Dem voters. How dare voters have to show proof of identity, even when they’re no longer with us!

Michelle Malkin remembers:

You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.

Once again, Bush shows he has a good sense of humor.

This is political porn at its best.

The relevant section is at: 13:20

Other highlights at:

4:21, 7:50, 9:55, 12:05, 16:20

I respect Whoopi Goldberg a lot, for her acting and for her generally level headed approach.

But she lost me completely on this:

Voting for someone based on qualifications or ideology rather than race is very "white" according to "View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg. Also, according to Joy Behar, only white males like tax cuts.

Discussing Elisabeth Hasselbeck’s concern that women are voting for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman and black voting for Barack Obama because he’s black, Whoopi Goldberg dismissed Hasselbeck’s concerns and proclaimed "that’s a very white way to look at it." Of course Whoopi said it "with a huge amount of love." Hasselbeck sarcastically responded "let me take off my white goggles." Sherri Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg agreed Hasselbeck can not suggesting the white people will never understand.

Earlier in the discussion, Behar added that voting for someone with the same gender or race may be in a person’s interest. She hypothesized that a woman over 50 who may face age discrimination may vote for Hillary as a way to combat that. She also suggested that white men vote Republican because "the white male loves his tax cuts." In Behar’s world, only white men like tax cuts.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: We were talking about the other day about how women seem to be voting for Hillary because she’s a woman and how Barack seems to be getting the black vote because he’s black. And I know this aggravates the hell out of Elisabeth.

So she start by baiting Elisabeth, a little taunt about it bugging her.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: Well, I just, you know, it just more than ag- it really concerns me I guess. Because I just believe that it would be ignorance say to vote for, to not vote for someone because they are a woman, or to not vote for someone because they’re black, right? I think that’s an ignorant thing to do. So I almost find it equally as ignorant to only vote for someone because they’re black or only vote for them because they’re a woman. And I hope that people, and, you know, that we as voters won’t be tempted to kind of do that. I think that we should be looking at the person who would be the president and what qualifies them and not vote for someone based on race or sex or gender or age. I just, I can’t deal with that.

Via Hot Air:

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the complaint. Turning KIAs into political props is bad enough; getting rich off it — profits may reach $75,000 in this case — is execrable. Any tort lawyers in the audience want to skim through and weigh in on the likelihood of victory? If the parents can get it to a jury they’re golden, but can they? One of their claims, negligent infliction of emotional distress, is sketchy. Another, intentional infliction of emotional distress, is sturdier, but a judge might use the precedent of the Falwell case to find that the t-shirt maker’s First Amendment rights trump. (Falwell dealt with parody, not political speech, but it’s easy to imagine how a court might extend it.)

The real issue for the lawyers has to do with the remaining claim, the right of publicity. I’ve always understood that to be a specie of trademark jurisprudence: Your name and likeness can’t be used without your permission to hawk goods if people would be misled into thinking it was an endorsement. As far as I know, there’s no right of publicity at stake in a shirt that reads “Tom Cruise Sucks” since no one would be misled into thinking Tom Cruise had licensed it. Featuring the names of dead soldiers on an anti-war shirt isn’t quite as cut and dried as that, but I’ve personally never assumed that the families of the fallen have licensed the names and/or images of the troops used in those dopey mosaics of Bush’s face, so in no sense am I really being misled. The question, then, is whether the right at stake is a simple property right — you can’t use anyone else’s name for any reason, period — or whether there has to be some element of trying to “pass off” the name being used as an endorsement. Not sure where the law stands on that, but note what the Smoking Gun says in its introduction about the Arizona statute passed last year. I’m guessing the parents have an uphill climb here.

Apologies for being so quiet this weekend.

After I wrote the Patriots day blog, I was just tired.

Too tired to contend with the back and forth gutter fight of the democrats.

Too tired to deal with Al gore and his musical hypocrisy.

Too tired to deal with the price of oil, Earth day and the entire environmental movement.

Some days this job becomes rather draining.  There is so much negativity and bitterness, so much venom and vitriol and so much partisan hatred that you almost want to shuck it all, and take up paper mache jewelry.

Almost.

Sunday I rested, and  Monday I focused on my day job, as Monday's often demand.  And today I was treated to this story, which served to piss me off.   That was shortly followed by a round of "Bush is stupid" on a Christian Discussion list, a round of Hillary and her promise to Obliterate Iran if they attack Israel on another discussion list, and a few other like stories.  So I was ready to jump in.

But the kicker was an email, the story of a friend named Paul who has been facing despair and unemployment for about a year, which was followed by a stint of homelessness, the feeling of misery that comes from realizing your children are the real happiness in your life, coupled with the feeling that you are a failure to them.

Paul was close to meltdown as he put it, but somehow managed to overcome it and was hired today at a job that offers him the chance to rebuild his life, his self esteem and his faith in himself.

In short, my feelings of weariness form work, life and blogging are pure bullshit.  I have a decent apartment, a good paying job, wonder family and friends and I get to blog anytime I want, something I really like.  Heck, I blog in not one but 5 places now, and I feel good about the impact it has had. 

I thought this was pretty appropriate.  Today while many people watch the Pennsylvania primaries, it is also a holiday:

Patriots Day.  While it is a little known holiday that is only observed in Massachusetts and Maine, the roots of the holiday seem more important today than ever before.

Jules Crittenden starts this off with a long but fascinating series of accounts about Patriot's Day:

April Morning

Patriots Day may be  the least knowwn American holiday, and the day  mostt deserving of our recognition. Observed in Massachusetts and Maine only. Don’t know it? It marks the day, April 19, 1775, on which Americans took up arms agaiinst their kiing, and bled, at the crack of teerrible dawn.

Orders from Gen. Thomas Gage to Lieut. Col. Smith, 10th Regt. Foot, 18 April 1775:  

...

 Paul Revere’s account: 

The post contiues with many more accounts and I urge you to read it thoroughly.

Over at The House is a very thoughtful post:

FOUNDING BROTHER

It has been a tradition at The House to republish my Paul Revere post to honor Revere, Longfellow, and Patriot’s Day which, as Jules Crittenden points out, is celebrated only in Massachussets and Maine. According to my site stats, it is the most linked post on this site next to my Katrina Timeline.

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, “If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,—One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm.”

  Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, Maggie's Notebook, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Right Voices, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.