HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Scalia: Voting Rights Act...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:09 PM

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

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

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:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/scalia-attacks-congress-for-renewing-voting-rights-act.php

131 replies, 17865 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 131 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’ (Original post)
kpete Feb 2013 OP
Le Taz Hot Feb 2013 #1
kelliekat44 Feb 2013 #37
TeaPotty Feb 2013 #68
Andy Stanton Feb 2013 #50
toddwv Feb 2013 #74
kelliekat44 Feb 2013 #84
DissidentVoice Feb 2013 #108
angry citizen Feb 2013 #2
Skittles Feb 2013 #11
warrant46 Feb 2013 #59
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Feb 2013 #76
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #103
dbackjon Feb 2013 #3
SwankyXomb Feb 2013 #29
The Wizard Feb 2013 #70
angry citizen Mar 2013 #120
dbackjon Mar 2013 #122
geardaddy Feb 2013 #4
KamaAina Feb 2013 #111
geardaddy Feb 2013 #112
blue_heron Feb 2013 #5
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #6
formercia Feb 2013 #7
MindMover Feb 2013 #8
progressoid Feb 2013 #9
John2 Feb 2013 #10
sendero Feb 2013 #95
Coyotl Feb 2013 #12
Misskittycat Feb 2013 #36
DissidentVoice Feb 2013 #13
marions ghost Feb 2013 #82
DissidentVoice Feb 2013 #105
marions ghost Mar 2013 #124
DissidentVoice Mar 2013 #125
marions ghost Mar 2013 #128
DissidentVoice Mar 2013 #131
Kolesar Feb 2013 #14
radicalliberal Feb 2013 #16
CanonRay Feb 2013 #58
radicalliberal Feb 2013 #15
NV Whino Feb 2013 #17
iandhr Feb 2013 #18
Faux pas Feb 2013 #19
harkonen Feb 2013 #20
dgibby Feb 2013 #23
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Feb 2013 #77
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #21
GiveMeFreedom Feb 2013 #42
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #53
DissidentVoice Feb 2013 #106
Jumpin Jack Fletch Feb 2013 #22
mountain grammy Feb 2013 #24
red dog 1 Feb 2013 #25
benld74 Feb 2013 #26
savannah43 Feb 2013 #27
aggiesal Feb 2013 #28
pscot Feb 2013 #85
Smilo Feb 2013 #30
John2 Feb 2013 #39
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #48
Smilo Feb 2013 #64
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #65
John2 Feb 2013 #93
Heather MC Feb 2013 #31
Orrex Feb 2013 #32
Baitball Blogger Feb 2013 #33
aggiesal Feb 2013 #34
John2 Feb 2013 #45
LoisB Feb 2013 #35
DissidentVoice Feb 2013 #107
dem in texas Feb 2013 #38
Wait Wut Feb 2013 #60
Skittles Feb 2013 #92
Dipshyt Feb 2013 #40
The CCC Feb 2013 #41
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #43
TinkerTot55 Feb 2013 #44
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #46
rurallib Feb 2013 #47
Downtown Hound Feb 2013 #49
Jennicut Feb 2013 #73
Ganja Ninja Feb 2013 #51
The Wizard Feb 2013 #71
Judi Lynn Feb 2013 #52
Kablooie Feb 2013 #54
olddad56 Feb 2013 #55
dsharp88 Feb 2013 #56
obama2terms Feb 2013 #57
KamaAina Feb 2013 #61
busterbrown Feb 2013 #62
Rhiannon12866 Feb 2013 #63
sakabatou Feb 2013 #66
DallasNE Feb 2013 #67
TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #69
sulphurdunn Feb 2013 #72
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Feb 2013 #75
totodeinhere Feb 2013 #78
TDale313 Feb 2013 #79
Ken Burch Feb 2013 #80
stillcool Feb 2013 #81
marions ghost Feb 2013 #83
RainDog Feb 2013 #86
DirkGently Feb 2013 #87
daybranch Feb 2013 #88
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #89
HooptieWagon Mar 2013 #127
PopeOxycontinI Feb 2013 #90
davidpdx Feb 2013 #91
47of74 Feb 2013 #94
Demeter Feb 2013 #96
bonniebgood Feb 2013 #97
aquart Feb 2013 #109
Botany Feb 2013 #98
Dustlawyer Feb 2013 #99
Maineman Feb 2013 #100
Little Star Feb 2013 #101
Tippy Feb 2013 #102
olegramps Feb 2013 #104
struggle4progress Feb 2013 #110
Bainbridge Bear Feb 2013 #113
LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #114
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #115
wordpix Feb 2013 #116
and-justice-for-all Feb 2013 #117
MessiahRp Feb 2013 #118
yurbud Mar 2013 #119
Doctor_J Mar 2013 #121
cyclezealot Mar 2013 #123
Hubert Flottz Mar 2013 #126
red dog 1 Mar 2013 #129
primavera Mar 2013 #130

Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:15 PM

1. And this man sits on

the Bench of the USSC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:53 PM

37. But i thought the US didn't pay any attention to legal precedants in other countries.

So we should model our government after the Sanhedrin? What about cutting off hands and feet and stoning people to death?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:20 PM

68. Outrage

 

What is Scalia's job besides being a Fascist and inspiring outrage?

All he does is meant to inspire hate and corrupt others' hearts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:14 PM

50. Not quite

This man s*its on the Bench of the USSC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:41 PM

74. Scalia is a piece of shit.

But he's just a cog in a wheel.

I have a suspicion that SCOTUS will overturn. It's part of the dark agenda that has been moving at a steady pace. An agenda that changes the "right" to vote to a privilege granted by a powerful oligarchy. The 2010 election gives gerrymandering control in quite a few states to the right-wing. Combine that with their blatant attempts to suppress the vote... it all adds up to a bleak future for this once great democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddwv (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:16 PM

84. The US Constitution itself originally perpetuated racial entitlement..and male entitlement. mt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #84)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:51 AM

108. And aristocracy

Where do you think the Electoral College came from? The "framers" that the far right claim to worship didn't think the "rabble" could be entrusted to directly elect the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:16 PM

2. Conservative Justices

Isn't this an overwhelming example of why there should never be a conservative president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angry citizen (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:31 PM

11. I wuld say it is THE most important example

welcome to DU, angry citizen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angry citizen (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:59 PM

59. Scalia is a Skunk following his Masters direction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angry citizen (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:21 PM

76. Yep

And I'd love to slap everyone who said there was no difference between Al Gore and GW Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #76)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:44 AM

103. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

3. Fat Tony needs to be impeached

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #3)


Response to dbackjon (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:57 PM

70. His nickname in the Nixon White House

says it all "Nino The Fixer." He shouldn't even be adjudicating parking tickets. A disgrace to America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:12 AM

120. Correcting congress

Why? Just because he wants to correct what congress did wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angry citizen (Reply #120)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:25 AM

122. So you agree with this?

There shouldn't be a Voting Rights Act?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

4. Va fanculo, Antonio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geardaddy (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:47 PM

111. ...ya dumb faccia galoob!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #111)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:55 PM

112. sì!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

5. Holy $h1t

You've got to be kidding.

What about waiting for the lawyers to present their case and then making up your mind!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:22 PM

7. Conservatism is proof

that 'Intelligent Design' doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:22 PM

8. "A Supreme Court that tramples its citizens' inalienable rights has no authority."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:26 PM

9. Just when you think he couldn't get any worse.

holy jeebus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:31 PM

10. Why was the

 

question about Massachussetts bought up? What does the most Liberal state in the country or one of the most have to do with Voting Rights? I heard one of the conservative Judges interjected that State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:20 AM

95. Not only that...

.. but what does voter registration have to do with this? NOTHING! A second year law student should be able to destroy that point but I wonder if anyone will.

this is not about registration, this is about the EXERCISE of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and about states that HAVE A HISTORY of putting up roadblocks to prevent that exercise.

Another part of this testimony that gave me heartburn was the idea that the monitored jurisdictions were chosen at random. NO THEY WERE CHOSEN BASED ON HISTORICAL BEHAVIOR.

If they do overturn this law they are risking a firestorm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:36 PM

12. We need the Voting Rights Act for as long as we have racist Supremes, at least!

Kind of interesting that the most vocal opponents are the ones who make the case for the need in the first place. Who needs to argue for it after seeing this display of twisting logic to fit bigotry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:47 PM

36. He just made the argument FOR the Voting Rights Act. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:41 PM

13. Keep in mind...

...that this SCOTUS is the one that said "corporations are people too," and with a slightly different makeup, handed a contested election to George W. Bush.

I remember a story from my dad, when he was in the Army at Ft. Hood, Texas in the late '50s. He said that he and three other soldiers (one of whom was black) went into a lunch counter at a bus station to eat. The owner said "he'll (the black soldier) have to wait outside." My dad said to the owner, "He's just as good as the rest of us and he's serving his country to protect your damned sorry ass. If he isn't good enough to get served in this piece of shit you call a lunch counter, then g*ddammit we aren't either!" They left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:34 PM

82. oh yeah the good ol days--that's what they want

your dad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:43 AM

105. Didn't Rand Paul say just that?

That if someone who owned a business didn't want to serve a person for whatever reason (including race) they shouldn't have to?

Things have come a long way since my dad's dustup with the POS at the lunch counter in Texas. When I went through Air Force Basic Training, a good chunk of the MTI's (AF for Drill Sergeant) were African-American, including my Training Superintendent (a Master Sergeant).

Scalia has his head up his arse, and so does Clarence Thomas for that matter. Thomas has to know history of how black people were mistreated in this country...could it just be that he hasn't internalised it, or he (falsely) believes that it couldn't happen again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #105)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:18 AM

124. The army is far more egalitarian than America

& has something approaching the health care system we all deserve.

Thomas you can't explain. Except that a toady of any color looks the same. Koolaid drinker & it's not affecting him personally. If only Anita Hill...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #124)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:28 PM

125. Agreed...

When the USAF was made an independent service it was nonsegregated from the start by President Harry Truman. I doubt that the valour of the Tuskegee Airmen in WWII went unnoticed by Truman.

At the same time he ordered the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard to be desegregated. Some generals and admirals howled but Harry basically told them to get on board or get the hell out.

Props to the remark about health care - I was in the Air National Guard and while activated for training I had to have a hospital stay of several days in an AF hospital...cost me nothing and excellent care...why the rest of this country doesn't pull its finger out about true UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE I cannot fathom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #125)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:59 PM

128. Ya want ...

Socialism?

Seriously the only conclusion you can come to is that the Corporate Powers actually do not want a healthy population. They want a population stressed and uncertain, and deprived. Paying through the nose to insurance companies, driven crazy with patching together health insurance, and limiting access to hospitals and medical providers, who are stressed as well. My 80 something MIL was agitating day in and day out about what would happen to Medicare if Obama was not elected. Why do we put someone who spent 45 years in civil service through that, at her age? Not to mention the rest of us? It is a lose-lose for all of us. But somebody is winning. Somebody who does not care about investing in the health of the people, not one little bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #128)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:09 PM

131. Damn straight!

I love it when the far right tries to bludgeon me with "socialist" as an insult...I just tell them "Yes. And so what?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:42 PM

14. "the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit"

Dred Scott v. Sanford
United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

I've been on an abolitionist tear for a few weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:48 PM

16. Roger B. Taney, the spiritual ancestor of . . .

. . . Justice Tony (disrespect intended here) Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:59 PM

58. I think Taney may have been re-incarnated in this idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:45 PM

15. Scalia is scum.

Political conservatism has a great history on civil rights (sarcasm intended most deliberately). Did Scalia ever object to Jim Crow at its cruelest? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that Jim Crow was a creation of conservatism, and the Ku Klux Klan was founded and supported for generations by conservatives. (And I speak as a moderate!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:54 PM

17. This man needs to be removed from the Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:02 PM

18. Even by my low opinions of Scalia...

... this is outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:04 PM

19. This actually brought tears to my eyes.

How do we get rid of bigoted 'judges'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:05 PM

20. Fat Tony is just perpetuation of Jim Crow & Worse...

 

Last edited Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)




fat tony will be vote-wise neutered during this Presidency. I believe that's why he's acting out now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harkonen (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:15 PM

23. Shouldn't that be a white hood on his head? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harkonen (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:24 PM

77. Nor did he remove his hat.

According to the picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:14 PM

21. We should all be grateful for Scalia...

His conservative tourette syndrome has been GREAT for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:06 PM

42. Twisted logic

In a way true. Certainly good for John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but he should be gone. The longer he sits, the more damage he does to the U.S. Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GiveMeFreedom (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:32 PM

53. Scalia should have been kicked off the bench the first time he attended a Conservative function....

Imagine the outrage if one of Obama's appointees attended a meeting of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:48 AM

106. No shit!

Or even moreso, if one of Obama's appointees had spoken at an LGBT rights organisation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:14 PM

22. Sad

 

I just shake my head when someone Italian, Irish, Polish, Jewish, etc. starts spouting this crap about African-Americans. Are they totally ignorant of American history???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

24. Well, he's out now, isn't he? As if we ever had any doubts.

and will Thomas accept this blatant racism? of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

25. Scalia is a douchebag.

Antonin Scalia quotes from Wikiquote

On stare decisis (adhering to judicial precedent)
"The Court's reliance on stare decisis can best be described as contrived."
(Planned Parenthood vs Casey, 505 US 833 1992 Dissenting)

On Robert F. Kennedy's famous quote:
"Robert F. Kennedy used to say, 'Some men see things as they are and ask why.
Others dream things that never were and ask why not?'..that outcome has become a far too common and destructive approach to interpreting the law."
(Speech at Catholic University, Columbus School of Law)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:23 PM

26. Scalia on SCOTUS is a “perpetuation of a speaking asshat.”

He obviously doesn't care about everything the GOP has been trying to do during voting in the last 10 years or even longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:25 PM

27. The sooner this psychopath is removed from SCOTUS, the better.

And make him take his silent sidekick, Clarence Thomas, with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:32 PM

28. Sanhedrin? Really? . . .

Tell me if wrong, but the last time I looked I thought we were in the U.S. not Israel.

What really gets me is that Scalia is Italian. Not too long ago, Italians were discriminated
against voting in the early 1700's, and may have affected his ancestors.

His sensibilities are so arrogant that he can't see past is own racial bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:35 PM

85. Italians also invented fascism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

30. Solicitor General being disingenous............

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, asking him whether it was the position of the U.S. government that residents of Southern states -- most of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 are in the South -- are more racist than those of Northern states. Verrilli said no

WTF - yes, of course, they are - prove be seen every single day with what is coming out of those states. He could have said - while not all it has been proven that there are more of those (stinking, slimey, white male republicans) that are likely to be racist and to be honest this is not just a Southern states thing.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

39. That was

 

the wrong answer. Does he have any voting rights data to support that position? Does he work for Eric Holder? Because if he does, he is incompetent. He is defeating his own case for the purpose of the Voting Rights ACT. Nobody have him there to play footsies with the opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:12 PM

48. No ...

That was the right answer to a trap question.

The question was not about voting data; but rather, whether residents of Southern states -- most of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 are in the South -- are more racist than those of Northern states.

And to answer that, the emperical data reported indicates only scant differences, with Northern Blacks reporting MORE discrimination/racism, thantheir Southern brethen/sistern.

The follow up to the repsonse would/should have been:

this case is not about a generalized attitude, but the demonstrated conduct of those subject to the provision. As recently as 2010, the County of (I don't recall) drew a particular voter district ... a district where the incumbent is Black ... in a manner that changed it from 80% Black to 70% white. Now, this - in and of itself - is not evidence of racial misconduct; however, it is exactly what Section 5 was enacted to do, require changes to voter districts of affected states to pre-clear those changes, in order to prevent violation to the VRA. And, in this particular case, it bore out; the DoJ review disallowed the changes after finding a racial effect ... Just as the Act contemplated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:31 PM

64. I love your response

calm, collected and spot on - I am too knee jerk in my responses. You should be in the DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smilo (Reply #64)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:34 PM

65. Thanks ...

Wasn't in the DoJ; but did just that in a state's equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 05:41 AM

93. My answer would

 

have still been yes after considering your answer. I would not have cut it off to just data at some small period in time. I would have used all the empirical data in research studies. The purpose of the Voting Rights Law was enacted because of the South. Measures within the Voting Rights Law were placed there to strengthen the law because Southern Legislatures found ways to skirt around Federal Law for the purposes of Discrimination. There are measures in the Law to opt out, based on performance.

Racial Discrimination for the purposes of voting is also done on a political scale. That is clearly seen by the Party these judges against the Law are in. The last Election cycles are clear evidence of the Republican Party's systematic attempts on a larger scale to deny voting rights to minorities. And there should be a lot more cases from the DOJ, on a larger scale against the Republican Party. I would not play footsies with them. The DOJ in fact should have joined the International community, when it was invited in to monitor the U.S. Election by Civil Rights groups instead of being cowed by the Republican Party.

My stance is the Republican Party is dangerous to American Democracy and the gains it has made ever since the Civil War. The Republican Party has morphed in to the Party of States' Rights, dominated by white supremacists, mostly from southern Politicians. The attempts by at least four Justices on the Court are clear evidence to me. The same Court that broke precedent and interfered in the Presidential election of 2000 within a state.

The bottom line is the Voting Rights Act is the clear Law of the land. I don't know why it is being revisited every incremental stage by this Supreme Court, when abusers of the Law seek reprieve? It has been clearly Constitutional by other U.S. Supreme Courts ever since enacted. That is why this has the appearance of politicization. They appear to want the law weaken. What is the difference in weakening the law for everyone that wants to break laws because it happens somewhere else? If anything the law is working very well. If anything, the Law should be used more in other places. And if it did, it will probably not be good for the Republican Party because they appear to be the biggest offenders currently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:39 PM

31. There has to be an online PDF form we can submitt to get impeachment proceedings started

on this Asshole. I am so sick of him he doesn't even hide the f asct that he is heavily influenced by one party. time to Go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:39 PM

32. Does anyone doubt that he's already decided how he'll rule on this case?

Or on any case, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:40 PM

33. He needs a refresher course on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Oh, that's the one that the right-wing is trying to disown, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:41 PM

34. Here is the 15th Amendment . . .

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.
Especially Section 2.

If the SCOTUS overturns this, then this will truly solidify them as the activist judges of all time.
Why bother having a Constitution if the SCOTUS can make or overturn law without consequences?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:08 PM

45. You are absolutely

 

correct! That is in plain Black and White! Scalia's assertion overstepped his authority, if that is his interpretation, he is just wrong! As a Supreme Court Justice, he should know that if he can read English!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:41 PM

35. I believe Scalia is a Catholic of Italian descent. I think he has forgotten a lot of

"his"story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:50 AM

107. He has...

On how Italian Catholics were discriminated against, along with Irish Catholics.

I am of Swiss-German/Elsassich-Lothringen descent on my father's side. Around the turn of the 20th century one of my ancestors felt the need to "Englisch" our family name because of all the anti-German sentiment going around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:54 PM

38. Scalia is so wrong

I am an old white lady, aged 73. When I was first able to vote in the early 1960's in Texas, I had to pay a poll tax which was equal to about half a weeks grocery money. I had 3 little babies and my husband didn't make much money and it was tough to come up with the money to pay the tax, but oh how I wanted to vote. I first voted on the South side of San Antonio, what an experience it gave me chills to think about all the people who fought for the right for me to vote that day. At that time I didn't question the poll tax, that was just the way it was in Texas. The voting right act helps poor people by giving them an easier and cheaper way to vote. Now we have gerrymandered districts, voter ID, restricted voting times, fewer places to vote, all to make it harder to get to the poll.

It is so important that the Democrats hold on to the Senate and try to take the House. Some of the Supremes are going to either retire or die and we have to appoint new justices. We want the Democrats in charge when that time comes. We are now paying the price of having all those years of Republicans in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem in texas (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:01 PM

60. What a great story!

I can imagine the pride you felt.

Thank you for sharing and for continuing to fight.

Oh, and welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem in texas (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:31 AM

92. this is worthy of its own thread

well done, dem in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:01 PM

40. SMD

I am in awe. This brought tears of anger and disbelief. This man (and use that term lightly) needs to go and his dog ToTo too. (CT).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:01 PM

41. Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement

His arrogant ignorance is appalling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:07 PM

43. Come on, folks ...

Scalia's comment was taken out of context ...

What he really said was:

This case is all about the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”


Right? Isn't that what he said but the Lame Stream Media parsed his statement to invoke outrage! Right? Please tell me I'm right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:08 PM

44. Scalia.....

Odious, repugnant racist....
or individual with senile dementia.........
hard to tell which; God forbid it's both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:09 PM

46. There is more than Scalia involved in this mess

All of the conservatives have been on the negative against Section 5.
If it was just nut job Scalia, I wouldn't worry, but it's the conservative majority: Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito that I worry about.

I don't believe President Obama filed a brief as he did with the DOMA case the other day. Why didn't he???

Also, election 2012 fiascos were not argued before the court



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:10 PM

47. wish they had recorded the answer to Sotomayer's question

hope it embarrassed the crap out of Tony.
But had the attorney agreed with Scalia, that would be quite telling also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:13 PM

49. Scalia and Thomas are the two main reasons I'm opposed to lifelong Supreme Court appointments

That's simply too much power for one person to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #49)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:25 PM

73. damn right!

Supreme Court Justices should serve terms like the President and those in Congress. Should be something like 10 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:20 PM

51. Here's the part that pretty much sums up what Scalia has in mind.

"Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it."

So strike it down because now there is something to be gained politically?
Scalia gives scumbags a bad name.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:07 PM

71. Scalia's comments in plain English

Colored voting rights means bigots can't win elections where normal people live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:24 PM

52. Supreme Court Seems Poised to Rule Against Part of Voting Rights Act

Supreme Court Seems Poised to Rule Against Part of Voting Rights Act

By ARIANE DeVOGUE (@Arianedevogue) , SARAH PARNASS (@WordsOfSarah) and ALEX MARINO

Feb. 27, 2013

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court continued to express strong reservations today about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, suggesting the key provision of the law might be in danger.

That section of the law says that certain states, mostly in the South, must get any changes to voting regulations precleared by federal officials.

On this first day of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts got to the heart of the debate. He asked whether the government thought that citizens in the South were "more racist" than citizens in the North.

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-poised-rule-part-voting-rights-act/story?id=18608835

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:45 PM

54. He should be a minor House representative, not a Justice.

He seems to judge the Constitution based on his personal views and biases, not on what the law says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:47 PM

55. this guy is so obviously biased towards the extreme right that it borders on terrorism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:48 PM

56. I'm sure Scalia believes those entitled people are due their full 3/5 of a vote. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:57 PM

57. So stupid

Racism did not end when the voting rights act passed, racism didn't end when Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and it didn't end when he was re-elected in 2012. Racism still exists, and sadly it always will. Living in the south, I know for a fact that if this is repealed maybe not the entire south but some areas in the south will go back to their old 1960s ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:09 PM

61. FAIL. The Sanhedrin were dissolved in 358 A.D. Israel was founded in 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

So Fat Tony is only off by 1,590 years.

Jon Stewart may have to adapt his "19th Century News" segment and put on a toga for "4th Century News"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:10 PM

62. He’ll always have 30% of this country at his back!!!

Lets face at least 30% of this country are out and out racists skunks.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:13 PM

63. Just heard this on MSNBC, makes me feel sick

So now we're turning back the clock on another issue?! This was the most successful civil rights law in history, so of course Scalia finds a reason to be against it. And on the day we honor Rosa Parks, too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:36 PM

66. I would love to see him removed from the bench

If only...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:11 PM

67. The 24th Amendment, Ratified in 1964, Bans Poll Taxes And Other Taxes

As well as directing Congress to pass any and all laws to enforce the 24th Amendment. The passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was in direct response to this call to act. It will be interesting to see how Scalia attempts to decouple these two items.

Kennedy's comment about "times change" indicates that he would have no problem with nullifying an act of Congress and signed by the President. Nullification in this manner is clearly legislating from the bench, pure and simple. Frankly, if there is a flaw with the 1965 Voting Rights Act it is that it does not extend to all 50 States -- or does the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause extend it to all 50 States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:36 PM

69. 'scuse language. Certain folk want uppity n*****s to riot.

 

They want OPEN racial conflict. They want that final excuse to bring the hammer down, not just on blacks or hispanics, but the entire populace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:09 PM

72. Scalia himself

makes the best arguments against his own positions. He is a truly pitiful caricature of a jurist and a national embarrassment. But he is only a servant. What needs to be thoroughly examined is the political system that deliberately elevates such a low creature to such a high place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:19 PM

75. Sheez

Can't wait till this troglodyte finally leaves the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:25 PM

78. This is obviously just one more ploy being used by Republicans to suppress voters in the Democratic

base. They see this as the best way to win future elections. If the five Republican appointees strike down all or most of the Voting Rights Act it will be their most egregious decision since Bush v Gore.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:43 PM

79. Disgusting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:54 PM

80. So, racial resentment...

Did black people ever actually do anything TO Scalia, or does he just think they never had any right to be here?

Worst thought of all...does he think, at some level, that blacks are STILL entitled(as some used to say)to "wait their turn" until all of the "white ethnics" have filled their plates?

What is his deal here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:01 PM

81. what a pathetic little man..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:45 PM

83. Just

outrageous.

This is what we're up against.

Impeachment--what would that take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:39 PM

86. If the fucking right wingers in this nation weren't still trying to infringe on voting rights

Maybe the Senators would dissent.

Scalia's "reasoning" is nothing but an excuse to create the possibility for Republicans to enact more dirty tricks to suppress votes.

Scalia is such a scumbag. I will be so glad when he's gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:54 PM

87. Scalia may be quite literally losing his mind. He at least used to pretend


to be a jurist. At this point he's just some kind of wacky fascist clown, playing to the gutter for applause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:57 PM

88. can anyone think of a better reason for filibuster reform?

Imagine what will happen unless Obama suggests a Scalia like Justice for the Supreme Court if he gets the chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:21 AM

89. I come from Hillsborough County, Florida

One of the areas under the special provisions of the Voting Rights act. We are the place that Rick Scott slashed early voting, tried to set up voter id, and that also slashed many people off the rolls because they were suspected immigrants, even if many of said Latinos were born here, and had in fact been in this state well before Jeb Bush or Rick Scott moved down here. We were famous last year for having so many issues with late polls that, once again, we could not count them in time.

And that was last year.

I will not need to get into the fact that blacks were lynched here, or even the fact that many down here proudly wear t shirts that glorify the clan, no, I am not talking just about the mealy mouthed "It's heritage not hate" or "if you find this flag to be offensive, you need a history lesson" shirts, or the fact we still have the nation's largest confederate flag flying right at the i-4 overpass, erected so that Super Bowl tourists would have to drive right by it.

I could also recommend that you check out the comment section in the Tampa Bay times, with a loyal bunch of trolls saying how liberal the times is. You will get the ones ranging from the "I am a realist, not a racist" to outright good old boys who speak of days when liberals will be lynched, the ones who find every way possible to sneak in sometime that rhymes or sounds like that N word.

These are the folk who are angry at Rick Scott because he is too LIBERAL.

The point is, Tampa is a mid size city, with enough democrats to vote for obama, no thanks to long lines, and people in the paper bragging about how they could shoot liberals under stand your ground laws. The only reason we have not become outright hostile is because laws are in place, and it is no accident that the people wanting to destroy these laws are the same ones who keep insisting that there was no bad behavior, even though we became an international laughingstock, yet again. If they say these laws are not needed, I tell you, they are most certainly needed, exactly because they are ashamed to admit that we still need them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #89)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:52 PM

127. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:25 AM

90. So....

Aw, fuck it. Fuck you, Tony, you cocksucker! Go to hell!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:00 AM

91. Tell me how you REALLY feel fuckface Scalia

I'm waiting for the grave dance of a lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:18 AM

94. I'd call ol' Tony a fucking pig

But that would be insulting to fucking pigs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:11 AM

96. Entitled to Vote?

Yeah, I can see where permitting and facilitating the rights of natural-born citizens of the wrong heritage to vote would be problematic for assholes, bigots, and the like....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:54 AM

97. "Dred Scott" Tony's answer is the very reason why we still need Section 5 of the voting

rights act. Scalia KNOWS that racism is the "perpetuation of white privilege" . which is why he
said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonniebgood (Reply #97)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:58 AM

109. Tony, honey, are Italians REALLY "white"?

I mean, the northern ones maybe, but isn't "swarthy" one of the descriptive terms for your kind? Not that it matters, OF COURSE, but don't romance writers refer to Italian, Greek, and Arab men as all having "long BROWN fingers"?

"Black" civil rights protect every minority in this country including mine. Yours too, Tony, you short-memoried senile ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:59 AM

98. Scalia turns 77 in 12 days

Kennedy turns 77 this summer

Thomas turns 65 this summer (and he acts even older)

C.J. Roberts is only 58 but he might have some sort neurological problem.

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

Scalia was just saying out loud what many republicans think ..... why do we let them N*****s
vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:39 AM

99. He knows Repugs cannot maintain control over any branch of Govt.

Therefore, he is pushing the argument that only the privledge class should have it. The rest of us are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:41 AM

100. Who put this jerk on the Supreme Court???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:54 AM

101. Fuck Antonin Scalia!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:17 AM

102. Remember Dec. 12, 2000......

" Not even one of Scalia’s fellow justices felt the need to call out his remark." Scalia is not the only racist on the bench...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:06 AM

104. This is a prime example of why there shouldn't be life-time appointments.

Scalia is an Opus Dei fascist. This secret society that was formed in Spain by fascist supporters of Franco has infiltrated the highest levels of government and business throughout Western governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:38 PM

110. That's not "good behavior" under Article III Section 1 IMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:27 PM

113. Scalia sez

 

"there must be something wrong there". Yes, indeed, Tony. There is something very wrong with a right-wing asshole like you being a Supreme Court justice. Now put your white hood back on and STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:02 PM

114. Racial entitlements?

Surely EVERYONE over 18 should be entitled to vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:06 PM

115. It's 1813 in Scaliaville.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:50 PM

116. this freak should be impeached - he's nothing but another dangerous moron

like *

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:05 PM

117. reich-wing activist judges suck...

I think he is also mentally deficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:11 PM

118. Didn't this racist court also overturn Brown v. Board of Education a few years back as well?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:01 AM

119. It's time for fat Tony to join the Pope in retirement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:19 AM

121. I may be a cockeyed optimist, but

I have hope that before I cross over, we the people are going to deal with Scalia and his cabal in a very public and very final way - the way they should have been dealt with in December 2000. A way that will be extremely discouraging to anyone who decides that democracy should be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:27 AM

123. Do something. Scalia is determined to be the Constitution's wrecking crew.

There is a petition on the White House petition site to have Scalia recalled. Sign it..
.
.
Do not miss out today's Robert Parry editorial over at Consortium . Scalia and friends are on a mission to be the Constitution's wrecking crew. Parry's title. The Neo Confederate Supreme Court. Next up is a neutered Constitution , where State's rights trump the Bill of Rights and state's might well bring about new Nullification laws. After that neutering of the commerce clause. No surprise , Scalia and Friends have not sworn allegiance to the Constitution but to the Federalist Society . They are hell bent on installing the Federalist Society's mission before Obama appoints another justice.
Today, there is a way to fight back, Scalia need be impeached for his treasonous regard for the Constitution.. Wait and Jim Crow will be the law and the Commerce Clause will be history..
Do something. Sign the petition on the White House petition site calling for Scalia's Impeachment. -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:46 PM

126. His name will go down in America history as a

total scumbag toady of the most rabid radical right wing. This Roland Freisler like POS, has no shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:49 AM

130. Wrong headline

The headline should read: "Anthropologists Discover Cro-Magnon Man Still Alive After 40,000 Years."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread