South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Michael Nettles

Circuit Court Judge Michael Nettles of Rock Hill has included in his sentencing of Cassandra Tolley the assignment of reading through the Book of Job and then writing a summary on the Old Testament Scripture.

Cassandra Tolley was convicted of drunk driving after she drove down the wrong side of the road and plowed into an oncoming car, seriously injuring two men. Her blood alcohol content was more than four times the legal limit.

Tolley undoubtedly deserved a stiff sentence, but sentencing someone to a religious activity clearly violates the Constitution’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” As conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in Lee v. Weisman, “[i]t is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.”

Nettles’ biography on the South Carolina Judicial Department website lists his involvement with the Lake City First Baptist Church and his membership in the Foreign Missions Team.

Religion has clashed with the rule of law plenty of times before, though rarely during sentencing. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was removed from his office in 2003 for refusing to comply with a federal court order to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse.

Today, Florida Judge Kenneth Lester set a new bond of $1 million for George Zimmerman. Lester said that Zimmerman, whose bond was originally set at just $150,000, was “manipulating the system” and, but for GPS monitoring, “would have fled the United States with at least $130,000” that he failed to diclose to the court.

In a posting to his website after the new bond was announced, Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara sought more donations from people who also would have shot and killed Trayvon Martin:

For those who have given in the past, for those who have thought about giving, for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his actions, for those who feel they would do the same if they were in Mr. Zimmerman’s shoes, for those that think Mr. Zimmerman has been treated unfairly by the media, for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman has been falsely accused as a racist, for those who feel this case is an affront to their constitutional rights — now is the time to show your support.

O’Mara said Zimmerman would pay an additional $85,000 to a bail bondsman to secure his release but, combined with other expenses, would wipe out his current legal defense fund.

Previously, Zimmerman apologized to Trayvon Martin’s parents for shooting and killing their son. He said that he thought Martin was older and did not know if he was armed.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not known for his measured understanding of the Constitution. He once suggested that Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution, and he opposes the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters because he believes allowing widespread segregation is “the hard part about believing in freedom.”

Nevertheless, in a op-ed attacking the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Paul digs in even deeper — likening that decision to others protecting slavery and Jim Crow:

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.

Think of how our country would look now had the Supreme Court not changed its view of what is constitutional. Think of 1857, when the court handed down the outrageous Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans were not citizens. Think of the “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which the court later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education.

For the record, the Affordable Care Act will rescue hundreds of thousand of Americans from medical bankruptcy, enable thousands more to take a new job or start a business, and save as many as 45,000 lives every year. It in no way resembles slavery.

Instances of voter fraud may be rarer than lightning strikes, but in Pennsylvania more than 758,000 voters may be disenfranchised this election season because lawmakers insist on solving the “problem” of voter fraud. Pennslyvania’s new voter ID law, which will take effect for the first time this November, may prevent 758,939 otherwise eligible voters, who do not currently have an acceptable ID, from voting.

A comparison, carried out by state officials, of registered voters and PennDOT ID databases show that only 91 percent of Pennsylvania’s 8.2 million voters have an acceptable voter ID. In Philadelphia, where voters will be hardest hit by the new law, 18 percent of voters lack proper ID. State officials had previously estimated that 99 percent of voters had acceptable IDs:

“What’s truly scary about this report is that it makes my case,” Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner said. “About 10 percent of otherwise eligible Pennsylvanians are disenfranchised by the Voter ID law. That’s not an acceptable number of people to tell that they can’t vote.” Disenfranchised groups, Wagner said, include older residents, students and the poor.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing to overturn the law, and Allegheny County Democrats said in June they would file a Commonwealth Court challenge.

Voter ID laws shift the electorate to the right by disproportionately disenfranchising poor, minority and student voters. Indeed, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) openly admitted that this is their purpose last month when he claimed that Voter ID “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

Nor is Voter ID a lone effort to disenfranchise voters. Republican politicians also pushed limits on early voting and registration efforts, and voter purge efforts that disproportionately affect voters who are more likely to vote democratic. New voter restrictions are also more likely to disenfranchise older voters.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, more than 5 million Americans could be disenfranchised by new laws making it harder to vote. Of the 12 likely background states, five have cut back on voting rights, and, taken together, the states that have restricted voter rights make up 171, or 63 percent, of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidential election.

–Alex Brown

All loving Christians are invited to celebrate the word of God at Rev. William Collier’s annual conference — that is, as long and they are white.

Collier’s Alabama town is outraged over the flyer for his pastors’ conference, which specifies “All White Christians Invited.” The town’s mayor is renouncing the Reverend, saying that such hate speech is unwelcome in the town. But Collier defended the flyer this week, saying that he isn’t a racist — just that “the white race is God’s chosen people”:

The organizer of the event, Rev. William C. Collier says that his Church of God’s Chosen (Christian Identity Ministries) is not a hate group but adds that he believes “the white race is God’s chosen people.”

Collier defends why only white Christians are invited.

“We don’t have the facilities to accommodate other people. We haven’t got any invitations to black, Muslim events. Of course we are not invited to Jewish events and stuff,” Collier said.

Collier does not specify what sort of special “facilities” people of color may need, but the line harkens back to old southern segregation, when water fountains and bathrooms had “whites only” signs similar to Collier’s flyer.

The church hosting the conference is named Christian Identity Ministries. This is the third annual conference — and the Ku Klux Klan is among the attendees this year. The founder of the church, Rev. Mel Lewis, complained that this year’s uproar shows a disrespect for religious liberty.