This is the laziest op-ed ever written by lawyers, on the subject of Sandra Day O'Connor's support for Ballot Question 1 in Nevada, which would move that state to join the 25 others that pick judges by commission instead of by ballot. Entirely setting aside questions of how we should pick judges, the writers (David Rivkin Jr., who is the attorney representing the states suing the federal government over "Obamacare," by the way, and Andrew Grossman, who seems to be of the Heritage Foundation!) actually believe something crazy! They say that because O'Connor recently was on the Ninth Circuit panel that upheld Arizona's proof-of-identity-while-voting law but struck down Arizona's proof-of-citizenship-while-voting law (a law that has improperly prevented naturalized citizens from voting, by the way), that now "critics of hers argue" (ooh, some critics somewhere argue, good one) "that Hispanics in Nevada—and others who agree with her Arizona ruling—might now vote yes on Ballot Question 1 simply because of the Justice's endorsement." Got that? It's almost like they believe the court issued a pro-Hispanic ruling—not a pro-America ruling. An odd position to take, in light of the law's consistent and consistently right history of removing obviously discriminatory obstacles to the right to vote. They apparently do not believe in the equal right to vote. So, look out, Nevada! Mexicans, and worse, Mexican sympathizers: now they all be takin' orders from Sandy Day.
Friday, October 29th, 2010
45 Polly Asks: New York Magazine Wants Me to Write Ask Polly For Them. Should I Tell Them to Piss Off?