Justice Ginsburg Dissent Against Texas Law

~So, Justice Ruth badger Ginsburg writes a lengthy dissent against Texas voting law.
Why? To get attention? To keep reporters and other justices up till 2:30 AM just because she can?
 She made it clear she isn’t going to retire. She doesn’t believe Mr. Obama can replace her with someone she approves of.  Ms. Ginsburg and the two other female Justices who voted against the Texas voter ID law just set women back 100 years and did more to split this nation’s voting privileges.  Just think- Who does Texas think they are to try and avoid voter confusion – to avoid voter administration confusion, to avoid inefficiency, to avoid as much voter fraud as possible. How many times has dead people voted in this country? How many times have students voted in different states- Their home state and where they go to school? Not hard for those who know how to work the system.
 Texas is requiring voter ID as all states should, Texas has given its people seven choices of voter ID. That’s seven, Mr. Ginsberg, take your pick. Proof you have a right to vote in the state, after all, it isn’t like these people didn’t have a chance. Voting doesn’t happen every day. Every few years – 365 days in the year to get some kind of proof you have a right to vote. Ginsburg whines about Texas having “the strictest regime in the country”, good for them – more states – no, all states should follow their example. Texas is not discriminating against its people. Ms. Ginsburg and the two other women justices are. Get to that in a moment.
Fraud is nothing new or has any of these women justices noticed. Ginsburg blames Texas for not knocking on doors to let all the “poor” people know about “free” ID cards or maybe hundreds of thousands of possible voters can’t get these “free” ID because they live too far away. It is- according to Ginsburg, the state of Texas who is responsible for not hunting these people down to see if they want to vote. One could say, Ruth badger Ginsburg is treating these people like irresponsible, incompetent, simpleminded, ignorant people who are not capable of making decisions for themselves. Talk about discrimination – that’s discrimination in itself declaring these people are too stupid, too ignorant, too poor to do anything on their own without the government handholding them, spoon feeding them to get them to the polls to vote. Being poor has never been an issue for not voting for over 200+ years. Discrimination comes in the form care of not allowing these people to take responsibility for their own actions. They are being discriminated against by people like Ruth Ginsburg who put them in a category of not being responsible human beings that do not have to rely on government interference in their lives to hold their hands and make decisions for them even to the point they are not capable of voting without being spoonfed with free IDs shoved in their face.
 Give these people credit and some dignity to be responsible to do something as simple as voting. When people want to vote they will do so. Has Ginsburg heard of responsibility? Ginsburg goes on to harp about the Texas voter ID would “diminish voter confidence in the system”. News bulletin for Mr. Ginsburg and the two other dissenting Justices – if this is their rationale that without rules, laws, regulations – then, the system is passed diminished to another just another sham of pretense of justice. A fraud. Election of who can cram the most non-eligible voters to the polls – how convenient to shove off “discrimination” by the town crier running through the judicial system when an individual doesn’t get their way. An insult to these people. It only widens the gap of races anywhere to deny them of being capable of responsibility to want justice the only ones who can deny themselves the right to vote are the ones who discriminate against the laws to protect their voting rights not to rig the ballot boxes. More must be done to stop corruption at the ballot boxes. When top administrators officials elected or appointed or anyone else corrupt the system for political gains then discrimination comes into play. It allegedly appears Ginsburg acted on personal beliefs of political persuasion against voting laws rather than her honest belief that these people were being denied rights to vote. Any discrimination would be to throw out the laws of voter ID and responsibility and allow the voting process to run wild.  Discrimination is against the people who are upholding the laws and trying to put some kind of order and sanity into the voting process.  Well, it appears, Ms. Ginsburg had her fame by yelling discrimination and only to insult the intelligence of those not being discriminated against by those who were discriminated against by Ginsburg’s actions.

This article is an opinion – the contributor is not an attorney and the article is not intended to give advice.