Scalia Blows it On AZ Voter ID Strike Down

Normally Judge Scalia and I are simpatico.  Today, however, he really blew it.  The Supreme Court struck down the voter ID law in Arizona today.  Scalia sided with the liberal majority in striking down the law, while Justices Thomas and Alito showed some common sense and actual discernment in the minority.  More from CBS Washington:

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.
The court was considering the legality of Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “motor voter” registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

But won't this pretty much open the door to more voter fraud, ala what went on in Ohio last year?  Yep:

  Tom Caso, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in California, said the decision “opened the door” to noncitizen voting. “The court’s decision ignores the clear dictates of the Constitution in favor of bureaucratic red tape,” Caso said.

Kathy McKee, who led the push to get the proposition on the ballot in Arizona, said the ruling makes it harder to combat voter fraud, including fraud carried out by people who don’t have permission to be in the country. “To even suggest that the honor system works, really?” McKee said. “You have to prove who you are just to use your charge card now.”


Besides, the Constitution puts the states in charge of managing the elections.  Thomas and Alito saw that, but I guess Scalia was blinded by a cheeseburger or something:

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling.
The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.
 

Once again, the Supreme Court gives more power to an ever overreaching and dictatorial federal government.  Shameful.

We Still Have A Choice

The Supreme Court has finally spoken. In what will be remembered as one of the most anticipated rulings of this generation, the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s healthcare law has been upheld by a vote of 5-4. This decision reaffirms how necessary it is that we elect Governor Romney as the next President of the United States.

Today’s ruling will usher in a future of higher costs, fewer choices, and less control over our health care decisions. The federal individual mandate violates the principles of federalism and limited government. It places the future of healthcare in America in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. It robs states of the freedom to develop solutions that fit the needs of their citizens. There is no denying that these are serious problems.

Indeed, Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas stressed the precedent that Obamacare will set when they dissented: "The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding."

By upholding the President’s healthcare law, the Supreme Court has redefined the role of the federal government as we know it. The decision expands the reach of the federal government in an extraordinary way.

Quite simply, President Obama’s healthcare law is not good for our country. The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the fact that it’s a job-killer. Nor does it alter the fact that it’s unpopular with the American people.

Fortunately, we still have a choice. With Governor Romney’s leadership, we can replace Obamacare with free market healthcare solutions which empower patients and doctors, not bureaucrats. Only then will we be able to restore the liberties compromised by President Obama’s policies.

Bennett on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

COLUMBUS - Today, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett released the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the President's health care law:

"The Supreme Court's decision doesn't change the fact that Obamacare is a bad law and is another burdensome tax on hardworking families and small businesses. When Obama and Pelosi rammed the 2,700-page bill through Congress, they went to great lengths to assure the American people that Obamacare was 'absolutely not a tax increase.'

"Last November, Ohioans in all 88 counties rejected the government takeover of health care, sending a clear message that voters in the Buckeye state will not stand for the President's overreaching attack on our health care system.

"This election, Ohioans have a chance to stand up once and for all against Obamacare. We have an opportunity to send Governor Mitt Romney and a Republican majority to Washington to repeal this tax. Once there, Republicans will remain committed to replacing it with comprehensive solutions that address access to care and true cost reform."

Batchelder on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

COLUMBUS—In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the federal health care law, Speaker of the Ohio House William G. Batchelder (R-Medina) released the following statement:

“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will raise taxes on all Americans and give the federal government unprecedented control not just over people’s health care decisions, but over the entire economy of our nation. I’m shocked and disappointed that this federal health care law—which will skyrocket costs on Ohioans and hurt Ohio’s businesses—was not overturned. Although we clearly need to reduce costs and improve Ohioans’ access to care, these mandates from President Obama and the then-Democrat Congress were not the best course of action for Americans and especially not for Ohioans. This plan is projected to raise costs on Ohioans by $940 million over the next two years at a time when we all are least able to afford it.

“My colleagues and I in the House Republican Caucus will work with Governor Kasich and the Senate to explore ways to minimize the detrimental effect these costs will have on families and businesses. It is my sincere hope that Congress will ultimately repeal the rest of the law and start fresh with reforms that will improve the quality and cost of care all Americans receive.”

Mandel on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

Columbus, Ohio -- Today’s Supreme Court decision sets the stage for the November election. Now, the only way the American people can stop the federal government’s takeover of health care is to change the people we send to Washington. Sherrod Brown cast the deciding vote for the Affordable Care Act that Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected last November. Josh Mandel believes that the legislation must be fully repealed in order to reduce costs, protect access, and prevent this bill from doing further harm to the economy.

Please see the below statement:

“Sherrod Brown staked his 38-year political career on casting the deciding vote for what will likely go down as the biggest tax increase in history. This is not just any old tax increase, it is a tax increase that falls squarely upon the shoulders of the poor, the middle class, and small businesses that can least afford to pay it. Even worse, this law increases the cost of care, puts government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors, and hurts the ability of private sector job creators in Ohio to give their workers the benefits they deserve. The voters of Ohio overwhelmingly rejected this one-size-fits-all approach last November, and I am confident they will do so again this November.

We can fix the problems in our health care system without a federal takeover and without a massive new tax on the poor and middle class. As Senator, I will fight for market-based solutions that allow patients to choose their doctor without government interference. I will fight to reduce the cost of insurance by increasing competition, encouraging innovative ideas like association health plans and health savings accounts, and reducing junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of everyone’s medical care. The choice in this election is between taxing the uninsured to pay for a big government plan that takes away freedom and a free market plan that reduces costs, increases access to high quality care, and protects the relationship between doctors and their patients.” -- State Treasurer Josh Mandel, Republican Candidate For U.S. Senate

OLC: Rejects Supreme Court Ruling

Release:

Columbus, Ohio - The Ohio Liberty Coalition rejected the decision announced today by the US Supreme Court upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama in 2010. Ohio Liberty Coalition President Tom Zawistowski said, “The Supreme Court has ruled that the law is legal, that does not mean that the law is right or what the American people want. Our course is now crystal clear. Our only recourse is through the election process, which is why our movement is committed to winning the presidential race and senate races in Ohio. Governor Romney has made it clear that, if elected, he would repeal the bill. That is what we want and therefore it is up to us to convince our fellow Ohioans to vote for conservative candidates in November. Our future as a nation is in our own hands and I am confident that the citizens of Ohio, and of our nation, will make their opinions clear at the ballot box in November."

The Ohio Liberty Coalition is a coalition of Ohio Liberty Groups whose purpose is to unite conservative grassroots organizations for greater effectiveness in the state and nation, and to provide resources for member organizations to strengthen their groups. The OLC currently has over 75 liberty-minded groups across Ohio who are members of its coalition.

CEI: Supreme Court Concocts "Rational Tax Test" In Health Ruling

Release:

Washington, D.C., June 28, 2012 – Statement by CEI Senior Fellow Gregory Conko:

In enacting the health care individual purchase mandate, Congress and President Obama insisted that the measure was not a tax. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court refused to take them at their word. But at least the Court did not uphold the mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce. Doing so would have granted government essentially unlimited authority over every aspect of the lives of Americans.

But the decision to uphold the mandate as a tax is troubling, like the Court’s prior commerce clause jurisprudence. Under the so-called “Rational Basis Test,” the Court has refused to question due process or equal protection violations when Congress’s reason for enacting the law might be “rationally related” to a legitimate government interest. Under that test, however, Congress does not have to explain why the law was “rational” as long as the Supreme Court can substitute its own rationale. Today’s decision says Congress does not need to call a regulation a tax—Congress and the President can even insist it is not a tax—if the Supreme Court can rationalize it as one: the Rational Tax Test.

Today’s decision gives ObamaCare a temporary reprieve. But an overwhelming majority of Americans have made clear that they do not want this health care law. Two years ago, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted that Congress had to “pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Well, Americans have now seen what’s in ObamaCare, and they want to see it repealed and replaced.

It was a dereliction of duty for the Supreme Court to uphold the individual purchase mandate. But eliminating the mandate alone would not have been enough. ObamaCare has been called a “government takeover” of American health care. But the sad truth is that, even before ObamaCare, federal and state government programs were already in direct control of close to half of all U.S. health care spending. In addition, private health insurance has for decades been subject to extensive state and federal regulation governing who must be covered and how.

In a very meaningful sense, government took over health care long ago. That has to change if health care reform is to be successful.

The core problems in America’s health care system – high and rising prices, lack of consistent and reliable access for millions, rampant cost shifting, and an inability to distinguish between effective and ineffective services or between high and low quality, to name just a few – stem primarily from existing government interventions in the market for health care and health insurance. It will take more than some minor tweaks to repair America’s health care system, and returning to the status quo won’t be enough. Congress should now commit to a major overhaul that will cure the system’s endemic flaws.

Real reform will require dismantling the layers of overlapping regulatory fixes imposed from Washington over the past decades. In addition to streamlining entitlement programs, Congress should eliminate the tax disincentives that push individuals into employment-based insurance, scrap federal and state rules that dictate health plan design, open up competition among health care providers across state lines, and put more purchasing power in the hands of individuals.

Statement by CEI Senior Counsel Hans Bader:

This is a perverse decision that allows politicians to avoid political heat by denying that something is a tax in order to pass it, as Obama and Congressional leaders did, when they pretended they had kept Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. By doing so, it undermines political accountability, despite the fact that ensuring such accountability was a chief purpose of the Constitution.

Gibbs on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bob Gibbs released the following statement following the United States Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act:

“I am disappointed in today's decision - but the fact that this law was ruled partially constitutional, does not mean it is good for the American People. Our job creators have been hampered by Obamcare’s endless regulations and taxes, making it expensive and harder to hire new employees. Since being elected to Congress I have been focused on trying to create an environment to encourage job creators to expand and invest.

“Ohioans overwhelmingly supported a ballot initiative that Obamacare is bad for them and bad for the economy. The Supreme Court today reinforced that Obamacare is in fact a massive tax increase on the American people and I look forward to standing with my fellow Ohioans and repealing Obamacare once and for all.”

Kasich and Taylor on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

COLUMBUS – Today Gov. John R. Kasich and Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor released the following statement in response to the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

“We’re very disappointed that this flawed law has been allowed to stand. The Supreme Court has confirmed what everyone knew all along—but that the White House tried to deny: this is a massive new tax on the middle class. Hopefully Congress will eventually repeal the law altogether and replace it with improvements that actually address the most pressing needs in health care, especially the need to reduce costs in order to improve access. Until then, Ohio taxpayers could be saddled with dramatically higher costs. The Administration will carefully analyze the decision to determine the appropriate next steps. We are very concerned that a sudden, dramatic increase in Medicaid spending could threaten Ohio’s ability to pursue needed reforms in other areas, such as education. Going forward, we remain committed to minimizing the law’s drag on the economic growth Ohio is beginning to experience, protecting the inviolate relationship between doctors and patients, and preserving as much free market competition in health care as possible.”

ALG: The Death of the US Constitution

Release:

June 28, 2012, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today issued the following statement reacting to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Obamacare:

"The U.S. Constitution died today. The underlying hope and belief that our nation's founding document protected individual freedoms from an ever encroaching government is a thing of the past based upon this ruling. It is inconceivable how these nine lifetime appointed jurists could have decided to keep a law that is such a blatant intrusion into each of our lives, but the result of their decision is that individuals can no longer rely on the federal government power being limited by anything other than the political pressure their individual elected representatives feel. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has opted out of the battle to retain our freedoms, and has thrown in entirely with those who advocated for unlimited government authority. It is truly a sad day for our nation."

Schmidt on SCOTUS Decision

Release from Rep. Jean Schmidt:

I'm disappointed by the Supreme Court ruling. Two years ago, when the Democrats who then controlled the House passed the so-called Affordable Care Act, they were adamant that it wasn’t a tax. President Obama was adamant that it wasn’t a tax. Now, the Supreme Court says it’s a tax. Regardless of how it’s labeled, the law should be repealed.

I was among members of the House who voted to repeal the so called health-care reform law at the beginning of the 112th Congress. That action has been blocked by Democrats in the Senate. Clearly, Congress needs to revisit the matter.

While President Obama claims the law would help control costs, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it could cause premiums on the individual market to rise. The Congressional Budget Office has also reported that the health care law could actually reduce job opportunities by some 800,000.

Our nation has the best doctors and hospitals in the world, but I'm concerned that this law won't ensure better care for patients. Instead, it could dictate how doctors practice medicine – and it could reduce treatment options for patients on the basis of cost.

I’m particularly troubled by the fact that President Obama’s health-care initiative would force religious institutions to offer their employees services such as birth control, sterilization procedures, and abortions, which might be contrary to a church’s moral precepts. That would infringe upon our religious liberties as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Lawsuits stressing that point have been filed by Catholic institutions.

St. Sen. Obhof on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

COLUMBUS —In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling today upholding the federal healthcare law, State Senator Larry Obhof (R- Medina) issued the following statement:

“We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling. In more than 200 years, the federal government has never forced the citizens of the United States to purchase any service or other product. We continue to believe that this law is a significant overreach, and we stand with the people of Ohio, who rejected the Individual Mandate last year by passing Issue 3 by a margin of 2-to-1.

"This may create significant long-term difficulties for the State of Ohio. The law could increase Ohio’s Medicaid enrollment by as much as 50 percent over the next few years, requiring billions of dollars in additional funding at a time when the budget is already difficult.

"We strongly urge Congress to repeal this law and begin working on better long-term solutions that will reduce costs and improve access to quality health care."

RNC on SCOTS Decision

Release:

WASHINGTON - Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision on ObamaCare:

"Today's Supreme Court decision sets the stakes for the November election. Now, the only way to save the country from ObamaCare's budget-busting government takeover of health care is to elect a new president," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

"Under President Obama's signature legislation, health care costs continue to skyrocket, and up to 20 million Americans could lose their employer-based coverage. A panel of unelected bureaucrats now has the unprecedented authority to come between elderly patients and their doctors. Meanwhile, the rules and regulations placed on job creators and small businesses make it nearly impossible to hire new workers at a time when Americans desperately need jobs.

"We need market-based solutions that give patients more choice, not less. The answer to rising health care costs is not, and will never be, Big Government.

"We must elect a president who understands the economy, respects free enterprise, and can provide the leadership we now so desperately need. On Election Day, we must elect Mitt Romney and put America on the path toward a brighter economic future and successful health care reform."

Portman on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling that President Obama’s health care mandate is actually multi-billion dollar tax on middle class families:

"While the Court has deemed the law constitutional as a tax on the American people, it is still flawed policy that is unaffordable for our families, our small businesses, and our government. The President's one-size-fits-all health care spending law is the centerpiece of a failed agenda that has increased economic uncertainty, stalled job creation, and deepened the spending hole that Washington has dug.

“It's time to change course and focus on growing jobs, instead of growing government. It didn't need to come to this. Washington didn't need to pass highly partisan legislation that is increasing premiums on families by $2,100 per year, increasing the deficit by billions of dollars, and killing thousands of jobs through billions of dollars in new taxes.

“There was, and still is, a better way to improve our health care system without the heavy hand of government and massive new taxes. I'm hopeful the President will be willing to work with Republicans and Democrats alike on patient centered health care that actually reduces costs and expands access.”

Boehner on SCOTUS Decision

Release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) released the following statement after the Supreme Court announced its ruling on the president’s health care law:

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.”

Obama and Napolitano Illegally End Enforcement in AZ?

Yep, you read that right....Like the petulant manboy he is, Barack Obama and his synchophantic lunatic Secretary of Homeland Insecurity, Janet Napolitano, are suspending a key program to help enforce the law. From Fox News:

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending in the state a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

The move further weakens efforts by Arizona, and potentially other states, to take the reins on immigration enforcement.

The high court decision Monday struck down three provisions in Arizona's law but left in place a central plank that required local law enforcement during routine stops to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

Obama administration officials and congressional Democrats immediately raised concerns this could lead to "racial profiling," though Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer adamantly denies it. To address those concerns, Obama administration officials moved Monday to pull back on enforcement cooperation with local jurisdictions -- meaning that even if local police step up immigration checks, they'll have to rely on federal officials to make the arrests.

Federal officials said the program known as 287(g) would be immediately rescinded in Arizona. That program was a partnership between federal and local governments, and allowed local authorities to make immigration-based arrests.

Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over.

This President's behavior is beyond the pale. His flouting and selective enforcement of the law is disgusting. For someone who talks about sharing and equality, where is the equal protection under the law? J. Christian Adams showed us the Justice Department doesn't believe whites can be the victims of racist attacks or intimidation...Obama doesn't want to prosecute illegal immigrants who violate our laws...He doesn't want anyone showing id to vote, or to show you are a citizen, but you better have it for union meetings and practically everything else....this man is as close to a dictator as we have had since Woodrow Wilson and FDR....

House GOP on Healthcare Ruling Aftermath: It's All About the Show, Not the Real

Look, this website has been critical but too often glowing about the current House GOP leadership. I don't know about you, fellow conservative, but I am getting a bit sick and tired of platitudes and then the eventual caving in... The latest...The GOP Strategery on what Happens after SCOTUS rules on Obamacare:

House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

This will be much ado about nothing. They need votes for this. They will need veto proof votes. They don't have them. More show. But wait, what Roberts and Co. strike down the Obamanation?

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

The post-Supreme Court plan — a ruling should come in June — has long been whispered about inside House leadership circles and among the House’s elected physicians but is now being discussed with a larger groups of lawmakers, showing that Republicans are aggressively preparing for a big-time health care debate in the heat of an election-year summer.

Look over that bold part again. They still are about pandering and giving away free stuff. Oh, we can't take your free stuff away. People might have to get serious about their lives for a minute.....

Give me a break. Folks, I have been without health insurance since 2003. Guess what? I am not oppressed. I still go to the doctor. I still get medications. I even had a turn with physical therapy and a severe knee injury. Granted, surgery was recommended, but I chose therapy. Why? Affordability. Wow, just think if we all would make decisions like that. Wonder what premiums would be then?

But I digress. The House GOP, where Boehner and Cantor worry about media love and such, is putting out a trial balloon. They want to know what you think of their great plan. Republicans are afraid of what the Democrats are going to say if the whole thing's overturned. And it's very predictable. Obama and the Democrats -- and I'll bet you the ads are already done. "Five white people on the Supreme Court took your health insurance away from you. Well, four white guys and a traitor that's black took your health coverage away from you, took your health care away from you. They still have theirs. They still have theirs but they just took yours. You know that's what the campaign's gonna be.

No political courage or will. No wonder Paul Ryan is staying in the House. Someone has to be the voice crying in the wind.

The biggest reforms that could be made would be Health accounts, competition across state lines, and a redefinition of what health insurance is. Health insurance, as it was conceived, was NEVER, EVER to be go to the doc on someone else's dime. It was meant for serious events, like hospital stays, etc. Unfortunately, to entice workers, companies added things, and now we have this collective mess. If we change the structure and nature of health insurance, maybe we can do something about price. To me, the doctor is like your mechanic of your body. Most reputable mechanics have maintenance job prices listed so you can compare. Why shouldn't doctors? But, I live under Mayor Limbaugh in Realville. Your mileage may vary.

On Jefferson, Church and State, and the Constitution

Over on Facebook, I've been engaged in a lengthy discussion about Thomas Jefferson and the "separation of church and state" as it applies to Constitutional issues and the First Amendment.  This whole thing got started when I chided a friend of the Libertarian persuasion for having re-Tweeted Joy Behar's ridiculous cackling towards Chritine O'Donnell.

My position is this: Separation of church and state does NOT appear in the Constitution or the First Amendment, and it doesn't.  The Supreme Court wrongly went to Jefferson's Danbury Letter when trying to decide Reynolds vs. the United States.  Once again, an activist court imposed their views on the law rather than actually using the Constitution and its Amendments for the basis of their decision.

Subsequent members of the Supreme Court have lamented this gross misinterpretation: (Source)

In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years."

Jefferson's real intent:

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine."

What does this mean?  I think Jefferson was saying that he felt that the Constitution limited government, not religion.

This article on the Danbury Letter is a quite fascinating read.  Check it out if you are interested in such things.

UPDATE:  Later in that article is this interesting tidbit:

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Emphasis added.  And we are supposed to belive that Thomas Jeffferson was so dedicated to the idea that religion had no role in politics...

UPDATE 2: Sometimes in getting wrapped up in the history, I forget to address the actual issue at heart of the discussion.  Fortunately, Ramesh Ponnuru does that nicely here:

“Some bloggers and tv commentators have seized on remarks by Christine O’Donnell to suggest that she is unaware that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. I don’t think that’s right. What she denies is that the First Amendment requires ‘the separation of church and state.’”

Exactly.  But I don't expect those folks who don't get it to ever acknowledge that she is actually making a very important argument that many Americans don't understand.  Why?  For the most part, our education system has robbed the citizenry of critical thinking and reading comprehension skills.  This is exactly the sort of circumstances that produce a culture obsessed with American Idol and other nonsense while the nation faced decline for the bulk of my adult life.

Voinovich on Kagan

Statement:

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) today announced his opposition to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Below are excerpts from his floor speech:

“As I said last August during the debate on Justice Sotomayor, the role of the Senate in the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is to give its advice and consent on the president’s nomination with the Senate to judge whether an individual is qualified based on a number of factors,” Sen. Voinovich said. “Among these factors are the nominee’s education, legal experience, prior judicial experience, written record, judicial temperament, commitment to the rule of law and overall contributions to the law. Based on my review of Elena Kagan’s record using these factors, I have determined that Gen. Kagan, at this time, does not meet the criteria for membership on our nation’s highest court.”

“Senate confirmations should not be a simple mechanical affirmation of the president’s selection, especially when the nominee will enjoy a lifetime appointment,” Sen. Voinovich continued. “A senator is duty bound to conscientiously review the qualifications of the president’s nominee and make an independent assessment of the nominee’s qualifications.”

“I believe a judicial nominee must have substantial experience in the law especially when that nominee is seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land. After reviewing her background, I believe Gen. Kagan does not have that relevant experience. For example, when the Senate considered Justice Sotomayor’s nomination, there were more than a thousand prior opinions one could review to decide if she was ready for the job; with Gen. Kagan, there are none. When I asked her to name opinions that she worked on with Justice Marshall with which she disagreed, she stated that she could not remember any individual opinion she worked on, much less whether she disagreed with Justice Marshall on any of them,” stressed Sen. Voinovich.

“Lack of judicial experience should not be an absolute bar on serving as a Supreme Court justice. However, Solicitor General Kagan not only lacks judicial experience, but has limited experience as a practicing attorney with really only the last year as solicitor general and two years as a junior associate making up her entire practice. Additionally, Gen. Kagan has an extremely limited written record, which should make all of us unsure as to what sort of justice she might be.”

During his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Voinovich has voted in favor of three prior Supreme Court nominations: Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito and Sonya Sotomayor.

Voinovich to Support Pro-Death Candidate for SCOTUS

In a move that should surprise absolutely NOBODY who has spent time getting to know the man, George V. Voinovich -- also known as RINOvich in these pages -- is going to support the Wise Latina and Pro-death judge, Sonia Sotomayor.

Can this idiot retire early? Please.

Mark's Remarks

Not to mention, the Wise Latina racist baby killer judge who hates white firefighters who are competent. You mean that judge, Matt?