Far from it. A deliberate death blow to America (what little there is left of it after Bush v. Gore and CU).

How long till we bring back the guillotines?

But only for Republicans.

Bush v Gore is likely such a distant memory for most, I expect that they think it was a liberal court back then.

citizen's united
bush v gore
etc

Don't think I've seen that before.

in time!

I doubt it's possible for Scalia but maybe Roberts himself can see the light.

the fuse?

The Right to Vote is America. The Will of God is God.

Ugh, never mind.

of the law or of the 14th and 15th Amendments?

Sarcasm.

Post #26: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022474579#post26

The ones who can fix the system, are the ones who benefit from the system.

We're fucked.

Seems like there's always room for one more....

The next one will be just the latest in a series of "errors" of historic proportions

Justice Scalia uses his OWN PREVIOUS WRITINGS without attribution as justification for his position.

"perpetuation of racial entitlement" - those words were first penned by Scalia himself.

Lawyer up and poof...a right is now an entitlement.

Worst SCOTUS in modern history.

They know exactly what they're doing. It's no mistake.

Short-sightedness is the first membership requirement of the right wing.

most corrupt of the modern era. Scalia has already cemented his place as one of the most corrupt, ugly and dishonest jurists of any era.

. . . even when Congress has not violated the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court authority to override Congress, but the Court has assumed that authority in cases of laws that violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional -- and therefore null and void -- has stood for a couple of centuries. I suppose that's because (1) there is no one in a position to question it, and (2) it has served as a check on Congress's temptation to make laws that violate the Constitution.

But what some of the justices seem to be hinting at here would take judicial oversight to a whole new level. They seem to be saying they may overturn the Voting Rights Act *because Congress passed it for the wrong reasons.* This would be the first time (afaik) that the Supreme Court would invalidate a law on any basis other than that law's violating the Constitution.

That would set the precedent, a precedent that no one is in a position to turn back, that the Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate laws that, well, they don't like.

on the Court is a travesty to every African American and our ancestors that fought for the Right to vote in this country. I say this as one Black male to another. I find his logic for voting against section five convoluted. Does he make the claim that Congress had the right to implement Section five because it was needed at one point in time but since there has been little evidence of discrimination in a certain area now, that it is now UnConstituitional? Since when can you decide something is Constitutional at one time and then not Constitutional at some later Date? If you are going to use such logic, then every Amendment or law in the Constitution would be subject to being overturned at some future date. The Second Amendment to bear arms could be overturned for example because the same conditions no longer apply. And after looking at Thomases entire Judicial record, it gives the appearance of an assault on minority rights of any group in this country that are protected in law. I can see why some refer to him as an Uncle Tom. And I have come to that opinion without even considering his personal private problems with Anita Hill. I'm not some uppity Black either. So he can't go there. The very reason he is on the Court was to replace a minority. He could have refused the appointment because it was Affirmative Action that placed him there.

This will be laid squarely at the feet of the Roberts Court.

Thanks for posting this. HUGE K&R!

this could happen. Surely there are 5 justices at least who are not on the side of this horribly racist 'error'.

...to free the rich from having to answer to a king, thus making them kings of their own castles.

Rule by white male landowners.

"You will know them by their Deeds and Not their Words." In this case their "Words and Deeds" seem to be very much in sync.

And, I think they're mostly right (for better or for worse) as I argued here:

http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html

-Laelth

no matter which arbitrary date you put on it to start with, 1492, 1776, whatever, we've been living with many, many years of "White Affirmative Action" in the States. Basically what Scalia is arguing is a reaffirmation of those rights, as if they're needed.

they will "do what they have to do" to fulfill their mandate.

Remember "History" doesn't matter to them in their Idealist/Money Grabbing Mode. It's about...how they "Served those who "Brung Them There."

I don't expect anything out of this COURT that could be called something that would be anything than what they are about.

sad saying...but it's what it is.

I could go along with this if they ruled it must include all states since the right to vote in every state should be protected. It would curtail those trying to limit areas where "minorities" vote. If as much effort was placed on getting more to vote as preventing access to voting this would be a good thing.

Missed this today, as on vaca!!!

and I hope her suggestion that SCOTUS will make the wrong decision is wrong.

'Without having asked a single question of Shelby County’s lawyer, Bert W. Rein, he taunted Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli with statistics purporting to show that Mississippi has the better record of African-American voter registration and turnout.

It was a “gotcha” performance beneath the dignity of a chief justice, and it turned out to be based on a – to put it charitably – misunderstanding of the data. The next day, the Massachusetts secretary of state, William F. Galvin, complained publicly that Chief Justice Roberts had used “phony statistics” in a “deceptive” and “truly disturbing” manner. (Mississippi, by the way, signed a brief urging the court to uphold Section 5.) . .

what the court’s conservatives seem to see in Section 5 is a threat to state sovereignty — the “sovereign dignity” of the states, a phrase Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has used in another federalism context. This theme ran throughout the argument. Justice Scalia referred to Section 5 as imposing “these extraordinary procedures that deny the states sovereign powers which the Constitution preserves to them.” Justice Kennedy asked whether “if Alabama wants to acknowledge the wrongs of its past, is it better off doing that if it’s an independent sovereign or if it’s under the trusteeship of the United States government?”

These are astounding comments, bespeaking willful ignorance of the origin (as in “originalism”) of the 14th and 15th Amendments, which transformed the constitutional relationship between the federal government and the states. Their very point was to invoke federal power to make sure the states delivered on the amendments’ promises: due process, equal protection, the right to vote for all.'


I hope a majority recognizes the above-quoted facts, and at least Roberts does an ACA and surprises Court-watchers. I suspect Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagen will give the others hell if they attempt to ignore and forget these facts. AND I suspect they read Greenhouse, tho she doesn't have to tell them the history.

There is very little chance that he will be voting in favor of keeping the pre-clearance and formula provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 4). Look back to his years in the Reagan administration. However, I still hold out hope that Justice Kennedy will not vote to strike down Section 5. He did seem very perturbed about the formula during oral arguments, referring to it multiple times as "reverse engineering". However, when he asked the petitioner's lawyer, Bert Rein, about "if they are covered under any formula that could be devised, why are they injured under this one?", Mr Rein didn't seem to have a good answer to his question.

But you never know. This case will hinge on Kennedy's decision. And I don't think we know definitively what he will do.

Couldn't believe that whole fiasco..... and will never forget it.

it ain't that easy.

He allowed the Affordable Care Act to be upheld. Now he thinks he can make some big right-wing rulings and not be seen as radical.

But I guess that was 2012.

The Citizens United ruling. But, hey, why not go for another?

He got away with Bush Vs Gore.

The filthy five know that they can do as they please, without any hindrance or oversight from anyone.

Tony hasn't believed in your vote counting for a very long time.

"Supreme" court will trigger something far worse than their simple imaginations can go. They do realize the dominoe effect it will bring will ultimately come back to them in the end.

before they were against it....

Deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist used to harass black and Mexican-American voters at the polls in Arizona. That was his "Republican activism" of his youth.

His harassment actually came up during his confirmation hearings when he was appointed by Nixon.

With with Citizen's United and with partially blocking the ACA.

This court really wants to go down as the most reviled in history.

I guess I can't say what I mean by "leave" or I'd get reported.

But why is it only the moderate judges seem to be retiring, only to be replaced by moderates. I thought ESPECIALLY because Obama is now a two term President we'd see a shift in the balance. Wasn't that the main reason given to vote for him in the last two elections? Sure it would have been stacked even more to the right with Gramps or Mittens in charge, but for the love of FDR this is disappointing. And I don't see it changing any time soon. I predict Scalia and Thomas shuffling in with their hospital drips plugged in for years to come.

apparatus recently. It's like a fortress, and a heavily armed one. I predict the SCOTUS to go viral, from Dick Cheney's underground bunker, by 2014.