as only relevant matters are already in the record of the Court for this case.

Other members, however, won't let him get by with this b.s., imo.

... if a Supreme Court justice has been referencing racist material.

and Supreme's decisions are based on those records, so other Justices won't allow his imaginings to become basis for a decision.

... and he is a Supreme Court justice. It would be politically very important if his source material was something questionable.

and 'politically important?' Don't know what that means, in this context.

... of course that would be important. If he is referencing racist "research," then even Republicans would have to turn against him.

and Sotomayor about this case. Sonia Sotomayor is one tough cookie, super smart, and not afraid to speak her mind.

I really don't know much about this stuff, but a quick internet search makes it seem like it might come from Edward J. Erler, a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2003&month=09

"Forty years ago, skeptics were assured that affirmative action was only a temporary measure, and that it would end when genuine equal opportunity had been achieved. But everyone knew—or should have known—that once racial class entitlements are established, they are not easily abolished. Twenty-five years from now, the idea they are based on will only become stronger. There is no self-limiting “termination point” in the regime of racial entitlements."

Doesn't that sound very similar to what Scalia said?

"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

it was revealed that in 1979 Scalia himself had written about this.