When I became a lawyer many moons ago I was of the naive belief that the legal “profession” was the guardian of the rule of law. A free democratic society cannot long exist without a rule of law that every citizen can depend upon to protect his rights and by which he may guide his actions. It is that rule of law that gives us a “one man, one vote” type of republic. Thus, when fraudulent voting occurs the rule of law is cast asunder and one man, one vote no longer exists. If someone else can vote twice or multiple times, your vote in nullified. If people not eligible to vote, because they are in this country illegally or they are dead say, the vote of a citizen is nullified each time that illegal vote occurs. Surely lawyers, of all people, would stand firm against criminal behavior at the voting booth. Surely judges, of all lawyers, would exercise every ounce of the power of their office to protect and defend, “one man, one vote.”
But they don’t do they. They make rulings that have no purpose other than to make it easy for some people, mostly democrats, to cheat at the polls. Since having a photo ID in this country could not possibly be made any easier than it already is for any citizen not a fugitive from justice, and since it is nearly impossible to live a normal like without a photo ID, the only reason to be against a law requiring a photo ID to vote, to make sure those who present themselves at the voting booth really are who they say they are, the only reason to be opposed to voter ID laws is so that you can cheat.
So what about those judges who strike down voter ID laws on the most specious of arguments, that such laws will disenfranchise people who don’t have a valid ID? If you can’t get a valid and legal photo ID there is some serious reason for that which probably means you are not an elector entitled to vote, or you want to vote a second or third time in the name of someone else. In my view, these liberal judges who strike down such a simple measure that merely tries to infuse a bit of honesty into a system so easily corrupted, they simply do not respect the rule of law in a just society, they don’t think it is their duty to uphold it even though they have taken an oath to do so.
These are often the same people who speak in lofty language about legal “ethics,” a term that is coming to be thought of as the most moronic of oxymorons.