And justice for all? Only if its convenient.

Wednesday night quick hit.

I was perusing this article about The Supremes (Robert's called Diana-which totally pissed off Thomas-who looks A-mazing in sequins) questions about an Indiana's voter ID law.

Here's the part that caught the eye of el-bloggerino. From Kennedy,

You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?

Now, I'm no Constitutional Scholar (but I do play on on the blogosphere) but I thought that Ross and Co don't decide law based on "convenience" but rather the other "c" word. Yes, "Constitutionality." From where I sit (brown couch, flannel bunny pj's), if said law is "Unconstitutional" it shouldn't really matter if it's convenient or inconvenient. Right? Isn't that the whole point of the "Constructionist" view of the US Constitution? Isn't that their job? If it's Unconstitutional for one person in the 300 million of us, then it should go away. For, by and of and all that.

Anyway, from the article it looked like the judges were more concerned with turning this into a convenient/inconvenient debate, rather than a debate about the Constitutionality of the Indiana Law. Just a touch troubling in the one building on the planet that's supposed to be devoted to that cute little document.