I got a chuckle when I read an editorial by Stephen Henderson in the Detroit Free Press.  He was discussing the United States Supreme Court decision concerning an Arizona case on political redistricting, the justices had to decide whether nonpartisan commissions can replace state legislatures in drawing congressional district maps every 10 years.

In the business it is called gerrymandering.  Both political parties do it when they are in power.  The parties attempt to redraw political districts to favor their party.  They want this so they can assure their party’s candidate will be voted in.  Thus they do not have to spend much money in those districts and can spend their money in more hotly contested or moderate districts.

What made me chuckle is his point that extreme liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes that the people should have more control over the electoral process.

In fact Mr. Henderson wrote the following: “Ginsburg unrolls a litany of our republic's framers (and their forebears) who understood the importance of the people themselves having more control of the electoral process than their elected representatives.”

Now this is coming from a Justice who votes most times against the people’s right to choose on a multiple of issues, i.e. same sex marriage, Hobby Lobby, Bush v. Gore, and etc.

In fact I found in the Columbia Law Review in Bush v. Gore she said the following in one of her most famous dissents, “her opinion in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). There Justice Ginsburg vehemently disagreed with her colleagues' decision to halt the presidential election recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. She argued that longstanding traditions of deference to state court interpretations of state law precluded intervention on the ground that the Supreme Court disagreed with the Florida court's interpretation of governing Florida statutes, and that questions regarding the practical possibility of a timely recount or consequences of missed federal deadlines should be left to Florida officials and Congress.”

Interesting how she showed deference to the state of Florida in that decision but not to Arizona in her latest decision.

If you cannot count on a Judge to be consistent when applying the law, what can you count on?

I was under the silly impression that justice is blind, apparently not with her and her fellow liberal Justices.

Justice Ginsburg pointed in her opinion to The Federalist paper #37 in which James Madison wrote: "The genius of republican liberty seems to demand ... not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people."

Apparently she only “intrusts” the people on decisions she believes the people should be “intrusted.”

In fact her court just refused to hear another Arizona case where the state wanted people to prove they are citizens before the can fill out a federal election form in Arizona.  I thought the people should have more control over the election process.

Let’s discuss this today on my show The Live with Renk show, which airs Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to noon, to let me know your thoughts at (269) 441-9595.

Or please feel free to start a discussion and write your thoughts in the comment section.