Scalia is an Idiot

This is what he said today regarding the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act;

“This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”

Here's what the U.S. Consti-fucking-tution says;

Amendment XV:
SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I used to think Thomas was the stupidest person on the Court, but at least he knows how to keep his mouth shut.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/27/17118509-key-provisions-of-voting-rights-act-appear-in-jeopardy-after-high-court-argument?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1


Eric Holder and the Justice Department looked foolish in oral arguments. They are arguing like fools, and the justices are making mince meat out of them.......Eric Holder really does have to go.

Back to the future.

When did the USSC start legislating from the bench...?

That has always been a battle cry from the GOP, and now it's their biggest weapon...?

It's easy to trip activism... Mr. Seaoat.

PkrBum wrote:It's easy to trip activism... Mr. Seaoat.

******************************************************

. . . . . . . a new ism?

The AG office could not answer simple statistical questions which they needed to anticipate. It is judicial activism when the court begins to legislate, it is not activism when justice Roberts asks very calmly which state has the fewest minority voters getting to the polls.......the AG goes Duh.....and he answers MA, and then informs the AG that Mississippi has the highest %.....not a very good defense of a congressional act which actually has a rational basis for Congress renewing the Act a few years ago......but if the AG's office has become a collection of clowns from Holder down.....this man has to be flushed down the toilet for his lack of prosecution of the Banksters, but when he sends ill prepared AGs to the Supreme Court for oral arguments.....criminal.

2seaoat wrote:The AG office could not answer simple statistical questions which they needed to anticipate. It is judicial activism when the court begins to legislate, it is not activism when justice Roberts asks very calmly which state has the fewest minority voters getting to the polls.......the AG goes Duh.....and he answers MA, and then informs the AG that Mississippi has the highest %.....not a very good defense of a congressional act which actually has a rational basis for Congress renewing the Act a few years ago......but if the AG's office has become a collection of clowns from Holder down.....this man has to be flushed down the toilet for his lack of prosecution of the Banksters, but when he sends ill prepared AGs to the Supreme Court for oral arguments.....criminal.

Roberts argument was thoroughly disingenuous, and he's well aware of it.

The problem is, Roberts is woefully wrong on those points, according to Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who on Thursday branded Roberts's assertion a slur and made a declaration of his own. "I'm calling him out," Galvin said. Galvin was not alone in his view. Academics and Massachusetts politicians said that Roberts appeared to be misguided. A Supreme Court spokeswoman declined to offer supporting evidence of ­Roberts's view, referring a ­reporter to the court transcript. On Thursday, Galvin tried to set the record straight. "We have one of the highest voter registrations in the country," he said, "so this whole effort to make a cheap-shot point at Massachusetts is deceptive...In the November 2012 election, there was little difference in voter turnout in Boston neighborhoods with high concentrations of white or black voters. In Charlestown, where 80 percent of residents are white, 68 percent of voters cast ballots in November. In Roxbury, the traditional heart of Boston's African-American community, about 64 percent of voters came out to the polls. Galvin and political scientists speculated that Roberts drew his conclusions using US Census Bureau data known as "The Current Population Survey," which collects information on voting and registration every other year. Political scientists say this is one of the few national databases, if not the only one, providing state-by-state voting information.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/03/01/massachusetts-official-challenges-chief-justice-roberts-claim-about-voting/u8rYN2MVzc3GOdq4cWyYEK/story.html

Roberts has a history and an agenda here, and he's not about to let something like the truth get in his way ...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/john-roberts-long-war-against-voting-rights-act

Roberts is top notch. He will do the right thing.

Roberts wrote that bailout rules "should be addressed by Congress, and not pushed into the courts." Roberts was arguing that elected officials, not judges, should make the rules governing when jurisdictions like Shelby County should be able to escape Section 5.

My guess that the court will kick this back to Congress to tighten up the use of stats and give a geographic area an easier route to opt out after showing some statistical proof of consistency in access to the Polls. I am not naive. People in the last election cycle were denying access to the polls......but they were trying to do this in Pa.......the law should be nationwide, it should be based on sound statistics which show denial of access based on race, and it should allow those areas originally designated to have an out by presentation of statistics which show the same.

Roberts will get this right.

If Roberts is irking Sal, it makes me happy.

This is a disturbing idea for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that its logic could extend well beyond the Voting Rights Act. There is a common belief among conservatives that welfare programs by their very nature lead to the kind of so-called breakdown of democracy that Scalia finds objectionable in the Voting Rights Act case. Indeed, the most famous articulation of this view was Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark: “those that are dependent on government and those that think government’s job is to redistribute — I’m not going to get them.” In essence, Romney warned that as the government creates welfare programs, this transforms welfare recipients into a constituency for those programs. And eventually that constituency becomes so large that it is impossible for a lawmaker to repeal those programs, or for people who oppose those programs to get elected.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-scalias-racial-entitlement-nonsense-more-dangerous-you-think?page=0%2C1&akid=10129.310455.Zk9CRI&rd=1&src=newsletter802922&t=21

PACEDOG#1 wrote:If Roberts is irking Sal, it makes me happy.

.............................................

When Roberts wipes his ass w/ the USC and it irk's Sal, it makes you happy....?

Yep, you're an idiot.

Bill wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:If Roberts is irking Sal, it makes me happy.

.............................................

When Roberts wipes his ass w/ the USC and it irk's Sal, it makes you happy....?

Yep, you're an idiot.

You weren't saying that when he was the swing vote on Obamacare. Same idea, but you now have a different opinion. Funny.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Bill wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:If Roberts is irking Sal, it makes me happy.

.............................................

When Roberts wipes his ass w/ the USC and it irk's Sal, it makes you happy....?

Yep, you're an idiot.

You weren't saying that when he was the swing vote on Obamacare. Same idea, but you now have a different opinion. Funny.

................................................

He wasn't wiping his ass on the USC when he was the swing vote on universal healthcare.

That is exactly what he did with the Constitution and Obamacare, he just had Roberts help with the wiping.

[quote="othershoe1030"]This is a disturbing idea for many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is that its logic could extend well beyond the Voting Rights Act. There is a common belief among conservatives that welfare programs by their very nature lead to the kind of so-called breakdown of democracy that Scalia finds objectionable in the Voting Rights Act case. Indeed, the most famous articulation of this view was Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark: “those that are dependent on government and those that think government’s job is to redistribute — I’m not going to get them.” In essence, Romney warned that as the government creates welfare programs, this transforms welfare recipients into a constituency for those programs. And eventually that constituency becomes so large that it is impossible for a lawmaker to repeal those programs, or for people who oppose those programs to get elected.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-scalias-racial-entitlement-nonsense-more-dangerous-you-think?page=0%2C1&akid=10129.310455.Zk9CRI&rd=1&src=newsletter802922&t=21[/quote

Are you serious? The Democrats brag about Demographics. Are you really saying the 47-49% of non-tax-paying voters are ready to be elected and rule the 53-51% of taxpayers?

Ever hear of the "Golden Goose Fable"?