HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 45,524

Journal Archives

That a black man-born 1948 in Pin Point, GA-could be party to such a ruling simply boggles the mind

SCOTUSBlog warns us that we should expect another 5-4 ruling, one that strikes Section 5 from the books. That's their preliminary analysis after listening to oral arguments today. They don't think preclearance will be ruled completely unconstitutional, but the law will have to be redrafted somehow if we're going to salvage anything.

From the Shelby County argument

Following through on the deep constitutional concerns stated in its prior Northwest Austin decision, a majority of the Court seems committed to invalidating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and requiring Congress to revisit the formula for requiring preclearance of voting changes. The vote seems quite likely to be five to four. The more liberal members pressed both the narrow argument that an Alabama county was not a proper plaintiff because it inevitably would be covered and the broader argument that there was a sufficient record to justify the current formula. But the more conservative majority was plainly not persuaded by either point. It is unlikely that the Court will write an opinion forbidding a preclearance regime. But it may be difficult politically for Congress to enact a new measure. More analysis soon.

- See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/from-the-shelby-county-argument/

That a black man, born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia, could be a party to such a ruling simply boggles the mind and takes self-loathing to a level probably not seen before outside of an asylum.

- See more at: http://www.boomantribune.com/#sthash.4Hl3Fdoi.dpuf

IMPEACH Scalia---He Thinks He Can TRUMP Our Constitution In Another NAKED POWER GRAB For The Right

Scalia on Bush v Gore: ‘Get Over It’

Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is A ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’


Nino is clearly telling us that a lot of Republicans are against the VRA but they are afraid to vote against it, so it is up to him to do the dirty work.


TPM Reader JS chimes in on Justice Scalia’s textualism …

1. Justice Scalia today regarding the voting rights act: “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”

2. The United States Constitution, 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.” (My emphasis.)



You don't have to engage in linguistic acrobatics to understand from his choice of "perpetuation" how Scalia has apparently always felt about a law that helped break the back of Jim Crow. His was not some innocent flub that just popped out. In the past he's backed states' rights by referencing post-Civil War racial exclusion laws. He's noted that he would have dissented had he been on the Supreme Court when it ruled unanimously for desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education. And then there was his dissent with the majority in a case just last year, Arizona v. United States, in which he argued against federal supremacy in immigration law:

"The States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks."

That's right, he favored Arizona's having the right to control immigration based on what post-Civil War states of the former Confederacy did to restrict the movement of millions of blacks who had been held as slaves just a few years previously. Quite the precedent.



Feel safer now?

For this latest in the annals of gun idiocy, here, presented without comment, is a report from CBS 42 in Birmingham, Alabama:

Birmingham police officers were on patrol in north Birmingham when they observed three employees from a trucking company chasing a trespasser from their property.

The officers interrupted the chase and took guns away from the employees. While trying to remove the bullets from a gun, the officer opened the cylinder and the gun fell apart. That portion of the gun hit the ground and discharged, striking another officer in the leg.

“It was a handgun,” Sgt. Johnny Williams says, “The weapon itself fell apart. It just fell apart.”


Behold the genius that is today's Republican Party:

For the past several years, congressional Republicans have focused relentlessly on a single message: Washington — led by President Obama — is spending too much money, and it needs to stop.

But according to new Washington Post-ABC News polling, that laser-like focus isn’t helping Republicans win the argument over federal spending — with 67 percent of those tested disapproving of the “way Republicans in Congress are handling federal spending.”


Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’

Source: Think Progress

Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’

WASHINGTON, DC — There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyer’s lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

The comment came as part of a larger riff on a comment Scalia made the last time the landmark voting law was before the justices. Noting the fact that the Voting Rights Act reauthorization passed 98-0 when it was before the Senate in 2006, Scalia claimed four years ago that this unopposed vote actually undermines the law: “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”

That was an unusual comment when it was made, but Scalia’s expansion on it today raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes. Scalia noted when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, it passed over 19 dissenters. In subsequent reauthorizations, the number of dissenters diminished, until it passed the Senate without dissent seven years ago. Scalia’s comments suggested that this occurred, not because of a growing national consensus that racial disenfranchisement is unacceptable, but because lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists. His inflammatory claim that the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement” came close to the end of a long statement on why he found a landmark law preventing race discrimination in voting to be suspicious.

It should be noted that even one of Scalia’s fellow justices felt the need to call out his remark. Justice Sotomayor asked the attorney challenging the Voting Right Act whether he thought voting rights are a racial entitlement as soon as he took the podium for rebuttal.

A transcript of the oral argument will be available soon, and we will post Scalia’s quote in its full context. We will also post audio of Scalia’s words when they become available.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1646891/scalia-voting-rights-act-is-perpetuation-of-racial-entitlement/

His choicest line today may have been this: “I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.” Who does he think he is, Chris freaking Matthews? Since when is it a Justice’s job to divine when the people’s representatives are acting from pure motives, and when they are moved by crass “racial entitlements,” as he describes the guarantees that allowed millions of African Americans to vote for the first time? Call that what it is, but it sure as hell isn’t originalism. It’s just lawless free-styling.

MORE on this:


Parks becomes the first black woman to be honored with a full-length statue in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall. A bust of another black woman, abolitionist Sojourner Truth, sits in the Capitol Visitors Center.

Obama said that with the installation of the statue, Parks, who died in 2005, has taken her rightful place among those who have shaped the course of U.S. history. He said her presence in Capitol would serve to “remind us no matter how humble or lofty our positions, just what it is that leadership requires.”

Obama and House Speaker John Boehner jointly led the unveiling, standing with the statue between them as they grasped and pulled in opposite directions on the braided cord that held the covering. Congressional leaders in the House and Senate joined Parks’ niece in tugging on the cord.

“We do well by placing a statue of her here,” Obama said, “but we can do no greater honor to her memory than to carry forward the power of her principle and a courage born of conviction.”


· A Reminder: What the Hagel Farce Was Actually About

· A Reminder: What the Hagel Farce Was Actually About – Outsourced to Peter Beinart

The right’s core problem with Hagel wasn’t his alleged anti-Semitism. From Jerry Falwell to Glenn Beck to Rupert Murdoch, conservatives have overlooked far more egregiously anti-Jewish statements when their purveyors subscribed to a hawkish foreign-policy line. The right’s core problem with Hagel was that he had challenged the Bush doctrine. Against a Republican foreign-policy class that generally minimizes the dangers of war with Iran, Hagel had insisted that the lesson of Iraq is that preventive wars are dangerous, uncontrollable things. “Once you start,” he warned in 2010, “you’d better be prepared to find 100,000 troops.”


Obama is sending an undocumented worker to live in your house while he awaits his deportation trial.

Right-Wing Poutrage
by BooMan
Wed Feb 27th, 2013 at 08:47:19 AM EST

The Republicans crack me up when they complain about the president being political and "campaigning" against them. Here they are, taking a meat-axe to the federal budget, offering to give the president more "flexibility" to wield the axe (so they can blame him for the resulting outrage), and when the administration delays the deployment of an air craft carrier or decides to release a bunch of undocumented workers from detention, they are outraged. "Couldn't he find the money elsewhere," they shriek.

Yeah, he could have, but he didn't because you are acting like assholes. And, in any case, supervised release is more cost-effective than holding people in prison where you have to guard and feed them.

Next right-wing conspiracy? If Boehner won't negotiate, Obama is sending an undocumented worker to live in your house while he awaits his deportation trial.

- See more at: http://www.boomantribune.com/#sthash.ofRGTdAm.dpuf

Whose deportation trial? The worker, Boehner, or Obama? If it's a wingnut conspiracy, it could be any of the above. - See more at: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/2/27/84719/4285#sthash.Bb5VOCTL.dpuf

Get off their ass?! Boehner just came off a week-long vacation!

John Boehner: Sequester Requires Senate To Get 'Off Their Ass'


Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm

Source: Think Progress

Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm
By Ian Millhiser on Feb 27, 2013 at 10:30 am

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm:

The Heller opinion notes that, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” As an example of the limited nature of the Second Amendment right to keep and carry arms, the Court observed that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” And the Court stressed that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.”

There can be little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding. In Heller, the Supreme Court cited several early cases in support of the statement that most nineteenth century courts approved of such prohibitions. We note, however, that this view was not unanimous. Nevertheless, most states enacted laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons” in the nineteenth century.

It should be noted that the court left open the question of whether a concealed carry ban is permitted in a jurisdiction that also bans open carry of firearms. Nevertheless, this decision is a reminder that, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller expanding the scope of the Second Amendment, states and the federal government retain broad leeway to enact many gun safety laws.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1637831/federal-appeals-court-there-is-no-second-amendment-right-to-a-concealed-firearm/
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 ... 1254 Next »