JUDGE RECANTS OWN DECISION ON GOP POLLING PLACE PHOTO ID LAW LATER UPHELD BY SCOTUS

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG

JUDGE RECANTS OWN DECISION ON GOP POLLING PLACE PHOTO ID LAW LATER UPHELD BY SCOTUS
7th circuit's Posner admits 'did not have enough information' at time to judge landmark vote suppression case correctly...

This is nothing less than remarkable. The 7th circuit court judge who wrote the majority opinion in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County Election Board case, has now admitted he got it wrong!

"I think we did not have enough information," Judge Richard Posner said in remarks today. "If the lawyers had provided us with a lot of information about the abuse of voter identification laws, this case would have been decided differently."

Crawford is the Indiana polling place Photo ID restriction case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was upheld in 2008. It is the case cited, usually inaccurately, by Republican advocates of such restrictions, who argue that such disenfranchising laws are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution. For example, it is the case cited (inaccurately) by TX Attorney General Greg Abbott, in his argument against the U.S. Dept. of Justice's current lawsuit attempting to block the Lone Star State's most recent attempt to institute that voting restriction at their polling places. "The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws do not suppress legal votes," Abbott said misleadingly in response to the DoJ's suit, as explained in detail last month by BRAD BLOG legal analyst Ernest Canning.

But, setting aside the misuse of SCOTUS' very limited ruling on Crawford, the remarkable news today comes via UC Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen, who transcribes remarks made today by Judge Richard Posner, author of the original 7th circuit majority opinion in Crawford, now completely recanting his original opinion on the case!

Read this. It's amazing...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10303

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10303

[trublu992]

1. WHhaaattt? What happens now?

[Android3.14]

3. Nothing, I'd bet

Except the myth of the Supreme Court takes another ding.

[BradBlog]

7. Legally, nothing, but...

...the fact that the judge who wrote the majority opinion now disavows it, could have a VERY important impact on several of the Photo ID cases now being heard in TX, NC, WI, PA and elsewhere because, as I explain in my article, the Crawford case has been the ONLY case of note that proponents of disenfranchising Photo ID laws have had to hang their hat on. (And, even when they did that, they had to misrepresent the case itself!)

[annabanana]

2. important k&r! . . .. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, BradBlog.

[The Second Stone]

5. Posner is wrong so often that stopped clocks look like they are working

by comparison. This is the "genius" that gave us a conservative economic jurisprudence that lets the rich and powerful roll over the poor and weak even when the facts and law are in the favor of the poor and weak. The whole f'in point of the rule of law is that there are limits to what the rich and powerful can do to the poor and weak.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Sounds like somebody

missed a payment on a bribe.

[Heather MC]

8. Lame Brain

I really can't stand these oops I changed my mind Judges

[Igel]

12. The alternative is worse.

"Yes, the evidence now seems to be against me, but I was right anyway." That's just a bit too fundamentalist for my tastes (let's be a wee bit insane and pretend this really was just a matter of style or fashion).

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind when there's additional or qualitatively different new information. Otherwise the scientific method would have to be defined as "a form of derangement practiced by the educated." You can never know something you didn't already know. How quaint. How Platonic--advancing Western thinking towards 400 BC one century at a time.

What's left is either claiming inherent superiority or correct faith--"I had the facts, you'd think that the stupid judges who brought suit that the law was unconstitutional should have been as brilliant as me" or "I believed this to be the case, and my personal beliefs are far superior to any kind of reasoning based on facts, which may be limited or flawed."

One way leads to megalomania, not unattested on political boards. The other, to a kind of religious fundamentalism, similarly not unattested on political boards. (With both individually exceeding the amount of snark attested collectively on all political boards.)

[Judi Lynn]

9. Hope "better late than never" works. n/t

[MFrohike]

10. He's so useless

I never understood the Posner worship. He bases everything on economic "analysis" with no apparent awareness of the gigantic effect of law on economics. He assumes he knows it all, so it's no shock he couldn't do his damn job and ask questions. What a waste of space.

[elleng]

11. Quite something!

And you know, Posner's an important, respected jurist.