[This article now cross-published by The Progressive…]
Okay. Now this is beginning to get completely absurd.
In an article at New Republic headlined “I Did Not ‘Recant’ on Voter ID Laws’,” published Monday, 7th Circuit Appellate Court Judge Richard Posner now claims he hasn’t actually disavowed his landmark majority opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board after all!
The record will show, however, the Reagan-appointed judge may have a bit of a faulty — or, at least, selective — memory.
The Crawford case is the now-infamous 2007 challenge to Indiana’s then new polling place Photo ID restriction law which Posner voted to uphold in a 2 to 1 decision. The law was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. It is the only high-profile case to uphold such laws as Constitutional, even though Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the controlling opinion at SCOTUS, now believes dissenting Justice David Souter “got the thing correct.”
Despite recent comments by Posner, in both his new book and at HuffPo Live, appearing fairly clearly to suggest he now believes he was wrong about his original decision in the case (which is often incorrectly cited by Republican supporters of such disenfranchising laws); and his expressed belief that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dissenter Judge Terrence Evans “was right”; and his assertion that such laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention,” Posner now appears to be wobbling back again in his latest response to his own controversy…
According to this week’s Richard Posner…
Read Posner’s full essay for all of his latest nuance. And good luck with that. Better read it quick before it changes again!
His reverse reversal, such as it is, comes on the heels of smears from some on the right — as we noted Monday both at The BRAD BLOG and at Salon — in response his initial disavowal of his original opinion in the case. It is that original opinion, of course, that is, for now, the law of the land.
Jacob Gershman at Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog observes, correctly, that this entire mess began in response to a line from Posner’s new book which reads: “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion (affirmed by the Supreme Court) upholding Indiana’s requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo ID—a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention”.
In turn, Gershman pulls then pulls the chair out from under the flip-flop-flippy jurist with his own words:
So, judge for yourself. UC Irvine law professor Rick Hasen already has. He told WSJ’s Law Blog, in response to Posner’s newest position: “I do not believe it is credible given his Huffington Post comments”.
Writing at his own Election Law Blog, Hasen tersely summed the issue by writing that Posner “was wrong the first time, right the second time, and wrong the third time.”
For our part, our continuing coverage of the Richard Posner Roller Coaster Ride can be followed in these articles, to date:
• JUDGE RECANTS OWN DECISION ON GOP POLLING PLACE PHOTO ID LAW LATER UPHELD BY SCOTUS (10/11/2013)
• Right Smears, Others Say ‘Told Ya So’: Fallout from Posner’s ‘Stunning’ Photo ID Case Admission (10/28/2013)
…You may wanna bring some Dramamine along for the read.
Another victim wilts in the face of the right wing noise machine.
In throwing his prior confession of error under the bus, Judge Posner is simply following in the footsteps of President Obama and other Democrats who threw Rev. Wright, ACORN, Van Jones and even Shirley Sherrod under the bus.
It is all too reminiscent to the “confessions” that followed Stalinist show trials, although in the cases of Posner and the spineless Dems, no one had to subject them to torture to get there.
I would contend that he did not recant his ruling originally, at least not from what I read.
Judges properly must decide cases based upon the evidence that has been presented and the applicable binding law. Extraneous facts not presented to the court during the case should not influence the decision. That’s just the way it works.
What he really said, and is still saying, is that the ruling he made was the only ruling that he could have made given the evidence presented; and he decries the fact that evidence allowing a better decision was not presented–could not be presented–at that time.
This is a perfect example of all of the sayings about patience: Painful as it is, sometimes you have to wait until a case is ripe before you bring it. Haste truly made waste in this situation.
As absurd as this may seem, when I read Posner’s “recant,” it struck me as an affirmation rather than a recant.
That said, might this be some sort of publicity ploy on the part of the judge? Or is he trapped by his own language?
This seems to be a year of recants. Let them continue, for what they’re worth.
I have an idea. In order to vote you must show proof of insurance under Obamacare.