As suggested by the anti-Bush cottage injury of books, there is a lot to be upset about in the Bush Administration. This underlines a troubling matter that is furthered by our system of government -- the executive department is a central aspect of the government, not just its head (the President), but the voting public often concerns itself more with the personality of its head. Thus, people who in various ways oppose the ideology and so forth that would be furthered by the election of a President will vote for the person anyway because they like the cut of his jib. Of course, those who do support his ideology are willing to vote for subpar leaders to keep the other side out of power.
All the same, especially since much of what the executive department does is fairly neutral traditionally speaking, people do not focus on the matter as much as they probably should. But, repeated evidence has shown that this administration is especially partisan and downright crooked even vis-à-vis others historically speaking. Important parts of the public, including those who focus on this sort of thing, continue to refuse to admit the fact. Facts do not matter to such people, apparently, partly because of deeply held beliefs the other side poisons the system as well, or that at worse it is just "same old same old." This is annoying, to put it nicely, since it simply is not true. But, so it goes.
Any number of examples can be shown, and many blogs keep a running count of them. They do not simply apply to the war and foreign policy, science policy, tax policy, but applies to any number of subjects. The number of targets suggests the ability to specialize, target one particular class of problems, and you still wind up having pretty damning examples. For instance, lately we heard of the politicization of the birth control approval process, pre-war intel, Jack Abramoff's involvement in the Dept. of the Interior, and the whole Harriet Miers mess. Another pretty damning one is the strange preclearance of a Georgia ID card law even though at least four of five members of the Department of Justice review team suggested otherwise.
This calls to mind the 23-4 vote in support of the "morning after pill" that was ignored with the additional matter that at least two amendments are directly involved (Fifteenth and Twenty-Fourth, discrimination by race and poll taxes, respectively) while the former measure is a bit less directly involved with the constitutional rights.* Likewise, various situations arose where accepted scientific knowledge was rejected for clearly political reasons, including in respect to global warning (see, e.g., The Republican War On Science).
Anyway, the picture id measure has been blocked by a district judge as unnecessary and having clear discriminatory effect. This is why the review panel opposed it. It would be presumptuous, I guess, to say that is also why the DOJ eventually precleared it. [The fact that it tends to generally affect those who vote Democrat might.] But, why should it surprise people to assume as much? Politics and ideology surely factor into executive administrative decisions, but as with everything else, this administration seems to do things much more blatantly than those in the past. A government not for the people, but for the rulers.
---
* [Extended Aside] It was suggested to me that the Thirteenth Amendment is a better way to defend one's right to abortion and control of fertility, since privacy rights are less absolute. I admit "privacy" is a bit nebulous, though that does not stop people from using the more open-ended concepts of "liberty" (from the Due Process Clause) or the Ninth Amendment to promote similar ends. Nonetheless, as used in case law and otherwise, it includes control of certain private areas -- including one's own body. Bodily integrity, etc.
Anyway, the control of one's own body is not absolute either -- as with jury duty, militia service, road work, immunization, and so forth, a pregnant woman can be limited somewhat by the state in complete control over one's body, even if they have not committed a crime. But, I'm all for a mosaic approach -- many constitutional provisions for the same ends. "Privacy" is one way to join them together, and reading Justice Douglas' writings on the subject (see, e.g., The Right of the People), it is not a bad way at that.
I'd add that another person referenced the 14th Amendment as showing that only post-natal "persons" (those born) are persons under the federal Constitution. But, it does not really say this -- it says that being born or naturalized is the path to becoming a "citizen." The use of "person" in the Constitution does in various cases suggest postnatal attachment.
Nonetheless, if for some reason a child could not be born, but developed after nine months a la a "joey" (baby kangaroo), it is unclear if said child would not be a "person." Likewise, arguably, non-persons can have such rights against persons in certain situations, such as animals who by law have a "right" (if one wants to phrase it thusly) not to be tortured. This helps pro-life groups only so much, of course, since even persons can be harmed to secure one's health and well-being.