Originalism- Tastes Like Wingnuttery

Oh, my:

There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyers’ 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.”

Racial entitlement? The VRA was put in place to stop racial entitlement- in whites.

Again, IANAL, but how is this anything different from the usual wingnut talking point about black people being the real racists?

169 replies
  1. 1
    jayboat says:

    Fair and balanced, baby.

  2. 2
    taylormattd says:

    no difference at all John, literally none.

    The leading “conservative” on the Supreme Court is not only a hypocrite, he’s also a not-so-subtle white supremacist.

  3. 3
    TaMara (BHF) says:

    I have NEVER wished physical harm on anyone before, but I wish Scalia would drop dead from his hardening arteries. If God were just….

  4. 4
    BGinCHI says:

    For Scalia, the freedom not to be killed infringes on…

    nah, why bother.

    Fucking white supremacist dressed in borrowed robes.

  5. 5
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Fascist Tony has again displayed his utter unsuitability to sit on ANY court in ANY capacity if he’s willing to make an “argument” like that.

  6. 6
    WereBear says:

    I guess he doesn’t remember the Italian American Anti-Defamation League. Back when Italian-Americans were not considered “white.”

    One could make the case that clueless overgrown frat boys like W don’t know what they are doing. (Boy, could you!) But Scalia should know better.

    I guess this is why tokens are so hated.

  7. 7
    Corner Stone says:

    Someone should have him tested for syphilis. He’s clearly becoming more deranged each session.
    I don’t even understand how you say this out loud, much less from the bench of the SCOTUS.

  8. 8
    Lavocat says:

    It’s got ZERO to do with the interpretation of law and EVERYTHING to do with the imposition of a dying conservative ideology on the (increasingly non-white) masses.

    This is what scared old white men do when they have life tenure with no fear of impeachment.

  9. 9
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Also, Scalia should recall that not that long ago, people of his ethnic heritage were considered to be second-class whites, at best.

    What a fucktard.

  10. 10
    dmsilev says:

    Out of morbid curiosity, I wonder how Justice Originalism will argue his way around this:

    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 suspect the word ‘appropriate’ in Section 2 is going to end up getting quite a workout.

  11. 11
    HumboldtBlue says:

    For the first time in its existence, SCOTUS blog has featured an article from a community college professor.

    Now you may be wondering why I mention that little factoid and I’ll now explain why that has changed.

    Because Political Science professor Ryan Emenaker of the College of the Redwoods, our local JC, has been included with the leading legal lights from the major law schools across the country with his research on the subject.

    It aint all weed and skittles here along the lost coast you elitist bastards!

  12. 12
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    I mentioned in an earlier thread that this is exactly the kind of case where Scalia can be at his worst – I mean both as a judge and as a person.

  13. 13
    Tim C. says:

    Didn’t Scalia once have a representation as being the consistent one? I’m not being snarky, I remember someone saying that while Scalia was flat out wrong in his legal viewpoints, he was at least consistent. Was that true once? When did it change? I’m assuming Bush v Gore had something to do with it.

  14. 14
    Ash Can says:

    I’m wondering how the actual lawyers here would parse Scalia’s words. Did he misspeak? Is there some context that lends further, less odious meaning to what he said? Or is he simply that much of a bigot and or anti-democracy despot that he really believes this? And if he is (and it wouldn’t surprise me), what’s going to be the reaction of the legal community in general and the lawyers at the SC in particular? Will there be any real fallout?

  15. 15
    Gary says:

    I am a lawyer and this is evil nonsense.

    The whole point of the 15th Amendment is to “entitle” people of a certain race to the right to vote. Scalia is basically complaining about perpetuating the 15th Amendment.

    Some originalist!

  16. 16

    No surprise. Especially on racial issues, Scalia is a cranky right-wing op-ed writer from 1990.

    He’s a gleefully partisan warrior. His anti-affirmative action opinions (see, e.g.n, Adarand) don’t even mention the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

  17. 17
    Scott S. says:

    @WereBear: He may very well remember the Italian American Anti-Defamation League. But he doesn’t care because he got his, fuck everyone else.

    In a just society, there would already be calls from Congress — and not just on the Democrats’ side — for Scalia to resign. As it is, we’ll be lucky if they don’t vote for a National Scalia Appreciation Day.

  18. 18
    dmbeaster says:

    Fat Tony has decided to employ Louis the Leg Breaker to take care of this uppity law.

    Truly astonishing, and completely revealing as to what a hack Scalia has become (or always was – he has just dropped the pretense).

    Scalia won’t say that the enactment of the law was unconstitutional (and there is no argument to support that outcome) – just that he wants to take away the Congressional power to reauthorize it when according to Fat Tony’s politics, it is no longer “suitable.”

  19. 19
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Ash Can:

    Or is he simply that much of a bigot and or anti-democracy despot that he really believes this?

    Bingo.

  20. 20
    MikeJ says:

    @Gary:

    Some originalist!

    No, he is an originalist. He doesn’t like the add ons and prefers the good old 3/5ths days.

  21. 21
    dmbeaster says:

    @Ash Can:
    Been a lawyer for 33 years. As Gary says in 15 above, this is straight up evil nonsense. It is an utter violation of what everyone understands to be the role of judges, and in particular a violation of Scalia’s phony “originalism” and “textualism.”

  22. 22
    Redshift says:

    @Ash Can: He also expressed this view on the idea that continue to Congress might extend the law indefinitely:

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

    He’s not arguing that maybe the Supreme Court should overturn it not because it’s unconstitutional, just that Congress may secretly want to overturn it, but be afraid to because voters won’t agree. Is there any explanation other than that he’s an anti-democracy despot?

  23. 23
    jl says:

    If I were in the House, I would try to introduce articles of impeachment against this ass every damn day.

    Total slimeball intellectual fraud partisan hack scumbag who just doesn’t give a damn anymore about anything but being an jackass. Doesn’t give a damn if he goes down in history as big corrupt fraud.

    Maybe we can start an amendment for term limits for the court.

  24. 24
    General Stuck says:

    Wow, that was a loosening of the code, from the SCOTUS bench, no less. Too bad that fascist pig fucker has no conscience of any import, and no chance of being impeached. Wingnuts all around are throwing off the wrapping of political correctness, and letting their freak flags fly. They should be free to do so and ours should only ask, is there anything we can do to help?

  25. 25
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Gary: To be fair, the Amendments weren’t part of the “original” document. Except the 2d, of course.

  26. 26
    GregB says:

    Former Chief Justice Rehnquist doctored his robes with the now famous 3 gold stripes. Scalia should go ahead and change his black robe to a white sheet with a fucking hood.

    What a moral reprobate.

  27. 27
    jl says:

    The only bright side I can see is this total loser fraud will stink up originalist strict constructionist textualist, plain meaning whatever conceited intellectual hairball he barfs up on a given day style of constitutional interpretation so bad, he will kill it off.

  28. 28
    Zifnab says:

    Disgusted, but not surprised. I wonder if Justice Thomas appreciates the irony.

  29. 29
    Punchy says:

    Great comment on TPM about this…for a judge who’s gone nonstop about the inflexibility of the Constitution and how it should not have to adapt to changes in society to NOW rattle on about how society has changed enough to render this law unconstitutional is just breathtaking.

    Shorter Scalia — The only law I follow is Cleek’s Law….to every case that hits the bench.

  30. 30
    Shortstop says:

    I really don’t care that he’s not a nice guy. I care that a member of the United States Supreme Court thinks this is an appropriate legal argument, particularly in this context, and that there’s pretty much nothing we can do to stop him discharging his duties in this outrageous fashion.

  31. 31
    Gravenstone says:

    @TaMara (BHF): Yeah, my first thought was along the lines of “Fat Tony can stroke out any day now. Really. No need to wait”

  32. 32
    danielx says:

    …but how is this anything different from the usual wingnut talking point about black people being the real racists?

    There is no difference – Fat Tony just outed himself publicly as another wingnut asshole (albeit one with designer robes), not that he hasn’t done it before. I believe this is what Michael Kinsley famously labeled a gaffe*.

    *”Typically, it refers to a politician inadvertently saying something publicly that they legitimately believe is true but have not fully analyzed the consequences of publicly stating such. Another definition is that they privately believe it to be true, realize the dire consequences of saying it, and inadvertently uttering in public the unutterable.”

  33. 33

    There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyers’ 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.”

    Racist colostomy bag is racist… and full of shit.

  34. 34
    West of the Cascades says:

    @GregB: There will be at least one political cartoon along these lines tomorrow, I hope (calling Ted Rall?)

  35. 35
    Soonergrunt says:

    “Racial entitlement? The VRA was put in place to stop racial entitlement- in whites.
    Again, IANAL, but how is this anything different from the usual wingnut talking point about black people being the real racists?”
    “Racial entitlement” is a bigtime winger talking point. They honestly believe that there is a special system of priviledges and benefits for racial minorities and especially that this has been expanded since Obama was elected. You get patently idiotic things like the conservative actor Craig T. Nelson saying “I’ve been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No.” because he, like all wingers, thinks that there is a special very generous benefit to being a minority in this country.
    All Scalia really did was briefly pull the curtain back and let us see inside.

  36. 36
    quannlace says:

    It’s the same attitude/argument when any group is asking for basic equality. “Oh, they want special treatment!”
    Jesus, it goes all the way back to women’s suffrage. Moron’s opposing a woman’s right to vote claimed it would somehow elevate them over men.

  37. 37
    Bokonon says:

    Scalia apparently also said about the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearing requirement for places that had a history of discrimination, “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”

    Um … no, Justice Scalia. That is PRECISELY the sort of question that you leave to Congress instead of the judiciary. Because that is exactly what the Fifteenth Amendment says:

    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 the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    It is pretty simple. In fact, you could say that the people who drafted the Fifteenth Amendment made it simple on purpose, so it could not be miscontrued or attacked.

    So … Justice Scalia, let’s flash back to law school and do some Socratic method for a moment. Given that Congess is acting under a TEXTUAL POWER granted by the Constitution, is it not the very essence of judicial activism to construe limitations to that power that are not expressed in the Constitution? Is it not judicial activism to deem Congress’ factfinding and its legislation a “perpetuation of a racial entitlement” because the judiciary reserves the right to do SUPERIOR factfinding? Is it not unseemly, and a violation of the separation of powers, to accuse Congress of both cowardice and discriminatory motives, and attack legislation based on your perception of MOTIVE? Is that the sort of meaning that you are going to try and pack into the word “appropriate”?

    Why so quiet, Justice Scalia? Answer the questions.

  38. 38
    MattF says:

    What I don’t understand is the business of ‘Section V was needed in 1965, but now it’s obsolete’. Is there a provision in teh Constitution that says ‘If, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, a law isn’t needed any more, then it can be overturned.’ I’ve never seen that clause myself, but I’m not a lawyer.

  39. 39
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Shortstop: I didn’t listen to the entire oral argument, so I don’t know the context of Scalia’s comment. There is, however, a possibility that it came in the context of a series of Socratic questions designed to draw out the complexities of the counsel’s argument. I put the probability of this somewhere between “no fucking way” and 0.

  40. 40
    ricky says:

    Well folks, the fact that Mississippi finally filed its paperwork to ratify the 13th Amendment kinda proves Scalia’s point. These white eected politicans have lost their damn nerve and it will take the guys in robes to put things right.

  41. 41
    Gravenstone says:

    @Zifnab: Given the fact that while Thomas personally benefited from affirmative action, he wants to wipe it from the face of the earth going forward. Because, FYIGM. I’ll go out on a limb and assume he sagely nodded his noggin’ in agreement with Fat Tony’s utterances.

  42. 42
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    @Redshift:

    He’s not arguing that maybe the Supreme Court should overturn it not because it’s unconstitutional, just that Congress may secretly want to overturn it, but be afraid to because voters won’t agree. Is there any explanation other than that he’s an anti-democracy despot?

    At first he could read the minds of the founders, now he can read the mind of Congress. What a guy!

  43. 43
    General Stuck says:

    @Bokonon:

    Since the line of argument from the VRA states, and the right wingers on the court, is one of outdated utility. How does the supreme court get off calling it unconstitutonal , rather than matter for congress to modify of repeal? Sounds like judicial activism in the morning to me.

  44. 44
    Shortstop says:

    @danielx: nothing inadvertent about it. Kay is right; he chose the phrase that would directly push the buttons of aggrieved white people who are convinced they’re being victimized by minorities. Note also his unbelievable repetition of Fox talking points during ACA arguments. At this point Scalia has given up all pretense of solid jurisprudence and is openly appealing to lowest-common-denominator wingitude.

  45. 45
    russ says:

    SCOTUS is the wrong venue. The legality of the law has already been decided by the court, any changes to the law are the job of Congress not the court. If it is not needed anymore is not the court’s right.

  46. 46
    Bokonon says:

    @Shortstop: @Shortstop:

    I really don’t care that he’s not a nice guy. I care that a member of the United States Supreme Court thinks this is an appropriate legal argument, particularly in this context, and that there’s pretty much nothing we can do to stop him discharging his duties in this outrageous fashion.

    I think that is exactly the message that Justice Scalia has been providing his critics ever since the Bush v. Gore decision. Nakedly. Unabashed. And sometimes literally using obscene gestures. Scalia is just waving his personal beliefs and his power and prerogatives in our face, and telling us to f__k ourselves if we don’t like it.

    It is an abuse of power, and a disgrace to the judiciary, but one that Scalia gets to do.

  47. 47
    Boots Day says:

    The other weird thing about this was that Scalia was musing about the fact that the VRA was being passed by increasingly large margins, to the point that it was reauthorized unanimously the last time it came up – and that that was somehow evidence of its illegitimacy, because senators were being intimidated into voting for it.

    Leave aside for a second the fact that that is pure nonsense. What I wonder is: what difference does it make what the voting margins in the Senate were? Whether it passed 100-0 or 51-49, it’s still the law of the land. It creeps me out that Scalia is looking at those things and thinking he can figure out what the Senate “really” meant.

  48. 48
    Trollhattan says:

    @Boots Day:

    I was surprised he didn’t continue, “And we need to put a stop to that right now, don’t we?”

    In another time and place, Tony could really have made those trains run on schedule.

  49. 49
    Shortstop says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: We have four months to go, so let me say again that I haven’t found your opinions in this area at all useful or credible. I think you will find some others more interested in hearing your take.

  50. 50
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @MattF: The idea is that the rights of the states are being infringed. This can be justified, if it is to secure a greater right or redress a particular wrong. But once, the right is secured or the wrong redressed, the justification for the infringement goes away. The concept is also applied to affirmative action legislation. The problem with it is that the need hasn’t gone away yet – if anything, the VRA provisions should be expanded to cover a number of other states.

  51. 51
    GregB says:

    I predict the Voting Rights Act will fall with all the conservatives voting for and the liberals voting against.

    The originalist bloc will strike the VRA down with a 4 and 3/5ths majority.

  52. 52
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    They honestly believe that there is a special system of privileges and benefits for racial minorities and especially that this has been expanded since Obama was elected.

    Short translation: The ni*CLANGS* are horning in on our special privileges, making them not so special anymore.

    This is, it’s not surprising, the basic desire of the 1% to put the middle class back in its proper place…huddled for warmth around an open fire with the lower class. It’s why David Koch says he hates Obama…because Obama is an “egalitarian.” You know, sort of like that Jefferson fellow wrote about in an obscure proclamation published on 4 July, 1776.

  53. 53
    Bokonon says:

    @MattF:

    What I don’t understand is the business of ‘Section V was needed in 1965, but now it’s obsolete’. Is there a provision in teh Constitution that says ‘If, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, a law isn’t needed any more, then it can be overturned.’ I’ve never seen that clause myself, but I’m not a lawyer.

    There is a simple answer to your question, and it is something called “judicial activism.” Something that good originalists like Justice Scalia supposedly hate to death. Except when they don’t.

  54. 54
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @GregB:

    Roberts will switch camps, as he did on Obama care.

    He gives a shit about his legacy. Fascist Tony could not possibly care less about his legacy at this point.

  55. 55
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Shortstop: Pie me then.

    ETA: Or fix your snark detector.

  56. 56
    Yutsano says:

    @Shortstop:

    that there’s pretty much nothing we can do to stop him discharging his duties in this outrageous fashion

    We can get on the horn to our Congresscritters and demand an impeachment of Mr Scalia. Of course that might take away drinking time from the AOS.

  57. 57
    Trollhattan says:

    @GregB:

    You may now collect your internets.

  58. 58
    Shortstop says:

    @Boots Day: in other words, he’s not a strict constructionist when it comes to reading legislation, huh? ;)

  59. 59
    balconesfault says:

    If I got some of the gist today, one of the arguments being granted deference by the majority went along the lines “since states like Ohio that aren’t covered by the VRA might be screwing minorities worse than VRA states have been able to, then we should overrule the act so everyone can be on the same footing”.

  60. 60
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Yeah, I think there’s an off calibration snark detector at work here.

    You have agreed with everything Shortstop has said.

  61. 61
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @balconesfault: More or less.

  62. 62
    dmsilev says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Roberts will switch camps, as he did on Obama care.

    Roberts has a 20 or 30 year history of working to gut the VRA. I’m dubious that he’ll change his mind now.

  63. 63
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @balconesfault:

    “Why can’t Alabama and Mississippi screw over minorities like Ohio can? We want that same ability!”

  64. 64
    Shortstop says:

    @Yutsano: if I thought we had a chance in hell…

  65. 65
    Anne Laurie says:

    @ricky:

    Well folks, the fact that Mississippi finally filed its paperwork to ratify the 13th Amendment kinda proves Scalia’s point. These white eected politicans have lost their damn nerve and it will take the guys in robes to put things right.

    To what address would you like your internets delivered?

  66. 66
    Petorado says:

    It’s scary to think that what will sway our highest court from descending into complete judicial anarchy are either Justice Kennedy’s whims on whether he will pal around with the conservative boys club for the day or Justice Roberts trying to avoid a legacy of being Chief Justice of the most insane Supreme Court ever.

    Scalia’s convinced that being a complete ass is what passes for right wing leadership these days. Every day I’m amazed at how much worse Tony and his kangaroo court ideas become, and every day more impressed with Justice Sotomayor — man was she a brilliant choice for the Court.

  67. 67
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: It is carryover from the ACA threads.

  68. 68
    balconesfault says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Roberts will switch camps, as he did on Obama care.

    He gives a shit about his legacy.

    I was kind of wondering if Scalia saying something that offensive was going to actually push Roberts to switch sides, so he’s not associated with a decision made on the basis of such rhetoric.

  69. 69
    beltane says:

    In 20 years time the backlash against these fascist white conservatives will be a brutal and ugly thing to behold. Oh well..

  70. 70
    Shortstop says:

    @Yutsano: I think encouraging his continued high caloric intake and tendency to unchecked rages might be more efficient in the long run.

  71. 71
    Pooh says:

    @Boots Day: Yeah, this is the line of argumentation that boggles my mind. Especially since Scalia is such a big fan of legislative history in other contexts.

  72. 72
    Short Bus Bully says:

    “Originalism” is just a PC way of saying “Things were a lot cooler when only propertied white men got to vote.”

    Done and done.

    And fuck Scalia and his Opus Dei bullshit.

  73. 73
    beltane says:

    @ricky: Mississippi should never have been allowed to vote in federal elections until they ratified the 13th Amendment. The mollycoddling of the former confederate states has been a true stain on this nation’s history.

  74. 74
    Pooh says:

    @GregB: I’m not sure whether to be offended or to declare you Champion of This Day In The Intertrons.

  75. 75
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Short Bus Bully: Originalism is a valid school of thought for Constitutional interpretation. I don’t subscribe to it myself. Of course, neither does Scalia. The difference is he claims to do so.

  76. 76
    jl says:

    ” Scalia’s convinced that being a complete ass is what passes for right wing leadership these days. ”

    I hadn’t thought of that angle. I wonder how much his speaking fees and wingnut welfare conference perks go up every time he mouths off offensive unprofessional and professionally incompetent garbage?

  77. 77
    jl says:

    I think I will write a letter to Reid’s office and suggest that because Johnny Bones, cheap two-bit hood who runs the House, insists that the Senate originate funding legislation before the House does anything, Reid should insist that the House impeach Scalia before the Senate takes up any bills passed by the House.

  78. 78
    Gary says:

    To truly appreciate what a totally unprincipled hack Scalia is, you should compare his various statements about when judges should defer to the wisdom of legislators.

    Today, he made that astounding comment that protecting the right of minorities to vote “is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress” — despite the 15th Amendment’s express mandate giving Congress that power. Compare that to his concurring opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, that that the Supreme Court should defer to state legislators when the legislature is arguably engaging in voter discrimination: “It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class.”

    In other words, judicial restraint is called for only if the effect is to disenfranchise voters.

    What a sorry excuse for a judge and a human being.

  79. 79
    Maeve says:

    Since Alaska (where I live) is subject to the VRA but obviously not “Southern” I looked up why states where subject to the VRA – any state in which less than 50% of the people voted became subject to the VRA. Only a coincidence that it mostly involved Southern states. Plus Alaska and South Dakota.

    Alaska has an obvious history of discrimination against Alaska Natives (no Natives allowed signs existed here) but we also passed the first civil rights law in the country (in the 40’s) and MLK day here is known as “Alaska Civil Rights Day in Honor of Martin Luther King and Elizabeth Peratrovich)

    When they debated the civil rights law in the Alaska Senate, a Senator literally said “Why should I, who have 5000 years of recorded history have to sit in a movie theater next to someone barely out of savagery” (not sure of exact quote) to which she replied “I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them, of our Bill of Rights.”

  80. 80
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Gary: What’s fun with that is the cases are only about five years apart so it isn’t as though he can argue that his views have “matured” over time.

  81. 81
    jl says:

    @Gary: Just call the guy what he is, a total intellectual fraud. He has been for years, but now it is becoming cartoonish. Sad that this fraud is where he is.

    BTW, I read that Nixon promised Bork a seat on the Supremes in exchange for the Saturday Night Massacre. That is how rank that crowd is. Wonder what kind of deals were made with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito?

  82. 82
    mai naem says:

    @Petorado: I am more impressed by Sotomayor as time goes by and she’s been on the court for such a short period. I wouldn’t be surprised if shes ends up like Warren/Black/Brennan. In any case I am glad there’s a woman up there who can make up for Ginsburg when Ginsburg retires.

  83. 83
    liberal says:

    @Scott S.:

    In a just society, there would already be calls from Congress — and not just on the Democrats’ side — for Scalia to resign.

    In a just society, the majority in Bush v. Gore would have been impeached and removed from the bench.

  84. 84
    Bokonon says:

    @Maeve: I believe there are some boroughs in New York City that are also involved (like the Bronx and Brooklyn), and that have to pre-clear under the VRA.

  85. 85
    Shortstop says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Yes, I got that he/she was striving for hilarity there. My comment was preventive, not reactive.

  86. 86
    gene108 says:

    And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.

    Scalia’s comments as posted on the TP link on the OP.

    I know some wing-nuts, who think the 17th Amendment was a bad idea, because Senators were no longer representing the interests of the state governments, which isn’t what the Founders wanted, i.e. the House represents the people, the Senate the states or something like that though in a representative democracy how you can separate the people from the government is unclear to me, i.e. the government is us.

    My interpretation of the above comment by Scalia seems to hint at some of those wing-nut arguments, about how the Senators no longer need to align with state interests.

    Really weird argument from a Justice.

  87. 87
    liberal says:

    @GregB:

    The originalist bloc will strike the VRA down with a 4 and 3/5ths majority.

    Heh.

  88. 88
    gene108 says:

    @Maeve:

    we also passed the first civil rights law in the country (in the 40′s)

    1840’s? Under Russian rule?

    The first civil rights law was passed in 1866. Totally ignored for 90 years, but it was passed by Congress nonetheless.

  89. 89
    Petorado says:

    On Scalia’s bit about not trusting overwhelming majority approval votes on VRA, via TP:

    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.”

    And this is the same Tony who always says,

    Judges who use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution are rewriting it rather than respecting its founders, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a roomful of judges and top lawyers in Houston on Monday night.

    “I fear the courts’ use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace,” the 72-year-old conservative jurist said.

    What an absolute jerk.

  90. 90
    liberal says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Originalism is a valid school of thought for Constitutional interpretation.

    Not really.

    Pretty much no one who claims to be an originalist thinks Brown was wrongly decided, yet a true originalist would have to come to that conclusion.

    Furthermore, Ronald Dworkin (who passed away recently) showed that originalism is incoherent.

  91. 91
    liberal says:

    @Petorado:
    Good catch.

  92. 92
    Maeve says:

    @Bokonon:

    since the original passage there have been additional requirements that add particular districts.

    I’m all for the VRA to apply to Alaska – in Alaska it’s a rural/urban divide with rural being more heavily Alaska Native and also more democrat – the last re-districting had to go through several rounds to pass the VRA and preserve Alaska Native and rural representation (at one time the proposed to split our town of less than 10,000 people (a large population for Alaska) into two districts – which to me was an obvious ploy to dilute the more “liberal/progressive” influence.

    But the VRA also said they couldn’t dilute Alaska Native influence.

    Acorrding to a friend (who is Alaska Native as well as descended from Russian immigrants) Alaska was a democratic state until the oil boom spoiled things. So rural Alaska is still “blue” while urban Alaska is “red” and of course verging into wingnuttery – the Wasilla area (on the road system connected to Anchorage versus those of us “not on the roads”) being part of the “bible belt” of Alaska.

  93. 93
    gene108 says:

    @Gravenstone:

    Given the fact that while Thomas personally benefited from affirmative action, he wants to wipe it from the face of the earth going forward.

    Thomas also benefits from Loving v Virginia, but I bet he’d never extend the same courtesy the court has enabled him to enjoy to homosexuals, who want to wed over the rights of states to discriminate against them.

  94. 94
    Shortstop says:

    @Bokonon: the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan.

  95. 95
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Petorado:

    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.”

    Isn’t this the same justice who claimed during arguments re: a death penalty case a few years ago that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the defendent was clearly not guilty, fry him anyway, because we wouldn’t want to disrespect the process which sent him to death row in the first place, too bad, so sad.

  96. 96
    Zandar says:

    And we’re back to maybe, maybe Chief Justice Roberts realizes in the history books, he’ll be “the guy that presided over the gutting of the Voting Rights Act” and maybe he does the right thing.

    Maybe.

    That’s where America is right now, rolling the dice on the enlightened self-interest of an arch-conservative who probably has 30 more years as CJ.

  97. 97
    LesGS says:

    He also said this: “There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now.”

    Is he talking about districts that are required by law to be black? Or is he talking about districts which have been gerrymandered, so that the impact of black (usually Democratic) voters is curtailed?

  98. 98
    Keith G says:

    We Democrats need to have a state by state plan for what to do when the contested parts of the VRA fall.

    The GOP plan is obvious. After the ruling, the GOP dominated states will immediately redraw state legislative districts to assure total domination in the next round of state elections. Where possible, the GOP will also redraw Congressional districts a la Tom Delay in Texas. Once that is done, those states will then change the way they apportion their electoral college votes. That done, the GOP will add at least another decade to their ability to survive the demographic changes we are seeing.

  99. 99
    Shortstop says:

    @gene108: Ginny is going to call you at 6 am, completely fucked up, to demand your apology for that comment.

  100. 100
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    Ah yes, here it is. In the Troy Davis case:

    “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”

    I wonder what the Sanhedrin would make of that? Something must be wrong here, perhaps?

  101. 101
    Petorado says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
    That’s the Solomonic wisdom of Scalia: In a case of disputed fatherhood he’ll happily preside over cutting the baby in half, but only after it’s born because then it wouldn’t be abortion.

  102. 102
    srv says:

    @GregB:

    Former Chief Justice Rehnquist doctored his robes with the now famous 3 gold stripes. Scalia should go ahead and change his black robe to a white sheet with a fucking hood.

    John, could you please call your good friend Ted Rall? That would make a great cartoon.

  103. 103
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @liberal:

    Pretty much no one who claims to be an originalist thinks Brown was wrongly decided, yet a true originalist would have to come to that conclusion.

    None of the people claiming to be an originalist actually is one.

    Also, IIRC Dworkin tore up Scalia-esque originalism as incoherent not the idea of using original meaning itself. But, as I mentioned, I don’t buy into originalism in either sense. I think that the original meaning of words and phrases in the text definitely should be a part of interpretation but not determinative.

  104. 104
    👽 Martin says:

    @Zandar:

    And we’re back to maybe, maybe Chief Justice Roberts realizes in the history books, he’ll be “the guy that presided over the gutting of the Voting Rights Act” and maybe he does the right thing.

    I’d say it’s a lot more likely after that line from Scalia. No matter what they say in their majority opinion, there isn’t a minority in this country that will believe it.

  105. 105
    Baud says:

    Does anyone know what provision of the Constitution Section 5 is supposed to violate? Honestly curious. Thanks.

  106. 106
    General Stuck says:

    @Zandar:

    Anything is possible, and given the current shit hole the republican brand is in right now, the smart move would be to punt on something this potentially explosive for the court and GOP.

    But Roberts, more than any other justice, has had a beef with the VRA, going back to when he was legal tadpole in the Reagan Youth Corp. And he hasn’t really changed his public stance since then. And after the ACA decision, he owes the tribe one for his decisive vote.

  107. 107

    @Petorado: So the House passed the VRA unanimously as well?

  108. 108
    General Stuck says:

    @Baud:

    I would guess notions of equal protections under the law. With similar twisted logic as Bush V Gore. But I am guessing.

  109. 109
    Petorado says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    The bill to renew the Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 13 by a vote of 390-33, with support from Republican House leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.. The U.S. Senate passed the bill 98–0 on July 20

    House dissent must not count, or something.

  110. 110
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    So the House passed the VRA unanimously as well?

    Nah, the House has more backbone to stand up to bullying voters than those cowards in the Senate.
    /Noted Congressional Historian Scalia

    Incidentally, that’s why you pour your hot tea into a cold saucer, to heat it up.
    /Scalia Thermodynamics

  111. 111
    Baud says:

    @General Stuck:

    That would have been my guess too, but I can’t tell who is being treated unequally in a way that violates equal protection.

  112. 112
    debbie says:

    Jeez, he gives judges a bad name.

  113. 113
    General Stuck says:

    @Baud:

    Butthurt at the man, for keeping whitey down.

    That and losing too many recent elections.

  114. 114
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: States. There is a constitutional doctrine of equality of the states. Shelby County’s theory is basically that, while here used to be justification for violating that doctrine, everything is all better now so there is no longer a need.

    ETA: Here is a link to the Shelby County’s brief. The Statement of the Case starting on page 14 of the pdf gives a summary of their argument.

  115. 115
    Maeve says:

    @gene108:

    not sure of the wording – it is described as the first “anti-discrimination law” i.e., banning discrimination in housing and public venues such as movie theaters and stores.

    Maybe not civil rights (technically allowing people to vote but not addressing factors that discriminate against them actually voting) but addressing discrimination in society.

  116. 116
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    There is a constitutional doctrine of equality of the states.

    Never heard of it. And aren’t there plenty of laws that treat states differently? Are they all unconstitutional?

  117. 117
    kay says:

    Justice Scalia is delightful. Such a rascal! He has this razor sharp wit. And brilliant. While you may DISAGREE with his reasoning, you must admit he is BRILLIANT.

    This is basically what I was directed to buy in law school.

    He could be drooling up there and ranting incoherently and they’d cover his ass. Must….protect…the…Court’s legitimacy. Just pretend you didn’t hear this latest asshole outburst. Never happened.

  118. 118
    Baud says:

    @kay:

    Kay, I’m glad he’s acting this way. I was afraid he would be lionized as a great jurist. Conservatives will still do that, but he’s now stunk up the joint so much that no one outside of that bubble will (except Villagers, but they are in the bubble.)

  119. 119
    Roger Moore says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    What’s fun with that is the cases are only about five years apart so it isn’t as though he can argue that his views have “matured” over time.

    Scalia’s views have matured about the same way as a bottle of wine does after the cork has started to fail. He’s just getting sourer and sourer with time.

  120. 120
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: Here is some fun stuff on the doctrine since you asked.

    @Roger Moore:

    Scalia’s views have matured about the same way as a bottle of wine does after the cork has started to fail. He’s just getting sourer and sourer with time

    Musty, perhaps?

  121. 121
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I skimmed it. I only saw a reference to the 10th Amendment. I don’t see how the 10th amendment can override the power delegated to Congress, and I’m not aware of it doing so in any other area of law.

  122. 122
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Thanks for the reference.

  123. 123
    kay says:

    @Baud:

    God, don’t count on it. To tell the truth about what he’s doing up there would be a real courageous act. These emporers keep their clothes.

    Did I mention he’s BRILLIANT? ADMIT IT. Ignire what he says and just keep repeating that.

  124. 124
    Baud says:

    @kay:

    LOL. One silver lining to all this is that, if there is one thing conservative justices have taught me, it’s that there is no precedent too sacred to be overruled. We just gotta get our people on there to do it.

  125. 125
    Calouste says:

    @debbie:

    You mean he manages to give lawyers a bad name?

  126. 126
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud: Previous case law basically recognized the VRA as an extraordinary remedy that was warranted by the existence of discrimination and would be phased out once the discrimination that justified it ends. Shelby County suggests, in its brief, that discrimination against minority voters is now such a minor problem that the VRA can be scrapped. You know, it was a good thing but its time has passed.

  127. 127
    kay says:

    @Baud:

    I’m weirdly excited about it, but I like the voting wars in politics. We can use this, instead of skirmishes in the states, take it national.

    I think they should overturn Roe, too. Just have the fight, already. I’m tired of threats.

    See you election day, Tony!

  128. 128
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @kay: You are braver that I am. Or maybe just more frustrated.

    I am worried that if the VRA goes a number of states will use it as an excuse to go nuts. Here in WI, our constitution has very strong voter protection provisions and limits what the legislature can do to restrict voting. Other states will not fare as well.

  129. 129
    Baud says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Yes, I’m not saying Shelby County created the theory from scratch. But it is non-textual, or so it seems. So whither the textualists?

    @kay:

    I like the cut of your jib, Kay.

  130. 130
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Baud:

    So whither the textualists?

    They are but textualists north-north-west: when the wind is southerly they know a hawk from a handsaw.

  131. 131
    fellatio Alger says:

    Maybe the good budge would be more comfortable in robes of white. And, you know, a hood.

  132. 132
    kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    They’re going nuts already. Pennsylvania. Texas.

    Justice Scalia tells us conservative lawmakers are being intimidated, their votes SUPPRESSED in Congress, by….voters.

    This is ridiculous. He has perverted the VRA and he’s relling us it’s disenfranchising white southern lawmakers.

  133. 133
    MikeBoyScout says:

    Scalia will be judged on his record on the bench to have been as bad as Justice Henry Billings Brown.

    I honestly fear for the inevitable white minority in this country when it comes time to reap the whirlwind.

    On a positive note, just how good a lawyer and a judge did our president appoint with Sonia Sotomayor?

    For those aspiring to Perry Mason lawyery, that’s how it is done.

    good dog, we are f*cked.

  134. 134
    MomSense says:

    If only Scalia could be “failed up” to Pope. I mean it’s also a lifetime appointment, you get to be infallible which has to be better than being a Justice, you get to divine God’s intentions instead of just lowly founders, you get to wear red patent Prada loafers, and you get a sceptre — a fricking sceptre! I can’t think of any other legitimate reason to use a sceptre in today’s world. I have to think that Scalia would find that cool.

  135. 135
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @kay: I’d apply the pre-clearance nationwide if it were up to me. That would solve a number of problems, but, more realistically, overwhelming the polling places with voters is the only real response no matter how this lawsuit ends.

  136. 136
    Bruce S says:

    “how is this anything different from the usual wingnut talking point about black people being the real racists?”

    Coming from Scalia, how could it be? He’s a far-right crank. Nothing more.

  137. 137
    Roger Moore says:

    @MikeBoyScout:

    Scalia will be judged on his record on the bench to have been as bad as Justice Henry Billings Brown.

    He’s a regular Roger Taney, he is.

  138. 138
    kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Early voting is the key. It’s an organizer’s dream come true. Hardest worker wins. Pennsylvania people should drop everything and focus there. I wonder if they have a referendum process. People will vote for it.

  139. 139
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @kay:

    Early voting is the key.

    We have in-person absentee which isn’t quite the same thing, but I definitely see the appeal. Once the votes are in, they are in.

  140. 140
    koalaholik says:

    @HumboldtBlue: My grandparents lived in Weott for decades and I remember going up there and wandering the redwoods and playing in the Eel River. I love that part of California. You are so lucky to live there

  141. 141
    rikyrah says:

    If he could, that racist muthafucka would reinstitute slavery.

  142. 142
    Cacti says:

    Scalia would have been right at home, putting his name next to Roger Taney’s that people of color had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

    Absolute swine of a man.

    Thank FSM for our august high court, vigilantly protecting the First Amendment rights of corporation to shovel unlimited cash at elections, and the slave states from the dangers of negro voters.

  143. 143
    burnspbesq says:

    @Tim C.:

    Didn’t Scalia once have a representation as being the consistent one? I’m not being snarky, I remember someone saying that while Scalia was flat out wrong in his legal viewpoints, he was at least consistent. Was that true once? When did it change? I’m assuming Bush v Gore had something to do with it.

    It changed sometime between 2005 and 2012. There’s no way you can reconcile Scalia’s concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich with his joining the dissent in NFIB v. Sibelius.

    If you’re more cynical, you would say that Scalia was a mole, and his prior consistency was just to lull us into a false sense of security. Then, when something important is at stake, BLAMMO!

  144. 144
    Roy G. says:

    And Clarence Thomas said….zzz.

  145. 145
    notoriousJRT says:

    @taylormattd:
    Don’t short-change “Justice” Scalia. He’s also an MCP of the first order and a religious bigot to boot.

  146. 146
    Cacti says:

    @burnspbesq:

    It changed sometime between 2005 and 2012. There’s no way you can reconcile Scalia’s concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich with his joining the dissent in NFIB v. Sibelius.

    Scalia jumped the shark of results oriented jurisprudence with Bush v. Gore.

  147. 147
    currants says:

    Serious question: anybody think Scalia’s got, I don’t know, Alzheimer’s or something? It’s the erratic bit that makes me wonder, among other things.

  148. 148
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Cacti: So you see his concurrence in Raich as a random deviation into reasonableness? I am going to call January 20, 2009, as the date Scailia full-on lost it.

  149. 149
    burnspbesq says:

    @Petorado:

    “I fear the courts’ use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace

    A peculiar thing for a purported originalist to say, given that the Framers’ understanding of what they were doing in Philly in the summer of 1787 was so heavily influenced by their understanding of the English common law.

  150. 150
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @currants: I’ve thought about it, but I think the simpler explanation is he stopped giving a shit and just let his asshole freak flag fly.

  151. 151
    jefft452 says:

    Scalia – “this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”

    Constitution of the United States, Amendment 15 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article”

    If Scalia cant respect the Constitution, its time for him to resign

  152. 152
    gvg says:

    Gerrymandering has a long history and has always been a problem. I see reason to expand the preclearance nationwide.

    Scalia seems to have lost his mind awhile ago. I’d seriously look for a medical cause. And I hate to admit it but I wish he’d die.

  153. 153
    MomSense says:

    @jefft452:

    I found that statement shocking.

  154. 154
    Unsympathetic says:

    Really? This shit of a case should have been laughed out of court – for lack of standing.

    ALABAMA is asserting that they’re no longer racist? ALABAMA?

    I’d like to meet the first person who rationally concludes that Alabama is a shining light of consideration and equality. And then punch that person in the mouth.

  155. 155
    Cacti says:

    @Unsympathetic:

    ALABAMA is asserting that they’re no longer racist? ALABAMA?

    And Shelby County at that.

    A county engaging in such egregious racial gerrymandering that the Bush DOJ had to crack down on them in 2006.

  156. 156
  157. 157
    kay says:

    So here’s my story about Justice Scalia. I went to see him speak in Toledo. He was on what I call the “post Bush v Gore restore credibility tour”.

    Many horrible things transpired, but one sticks out. Scalia once worked for a firm, for 20 minutes, 100 years ago. He’s proud of that, because as we agree, the highest calling is making buckets of money.
    Anyway, that firm repped Toledo Scale.
    So that was how he warmed up the crowd and told us he once walked among us.
    I thought it was interesting, because conservatives always do that to me. No matter what they ACTUALLY do for a living, judge, minister, teacher, whatever, they’re always telling me how it’s just like a business, or how
    they were in business, once.
    My thought is they should just stay IN BUSINESS rather than struggling to turn everything else into “a business

  158. 158
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @kay:

    My thought is they should just stay IN BUSINESS rather than struggling to turn everything else into “a business

    He had to sacrifice his business career in order to serve the government because his talents are so unique. Appreciate his sacrifice, damn it.

  159. 159
    Juju says:

    Keep eating those cream sauces, Tony.

  160. 160
    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge says:

    Everybody remembers Justice Taney’s “No rights a white man is bound to respect” line from the Dred Scott decision, but remember: the case was initiated by Scott’s owner trying to retain him in servitude north of the Missouri Compromise line, and the justices ended their decision with (paraphrasing) “Oh, and by the way, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional to begin with”.

    What are the chances of this court invalidating the 13th and 15th amendments along with the VRA while they’re at it?

  161. 161
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: The Supreme Court can’t invalidate Constitutional Amendments.

  162. 162
    Xenos says:

    @Boots Day:

    What I wonder is: what difference does it make what the voting margins in the Senate were? Whether it passed 100-0 or 51-49, it’s still the law of the land. It creeps me out that Scalia is looking at those things and thinking he can figure out what the Senate “really” meant

    Scalia does not care what Congress meant. If the vote had been 51-49 it zould be evidence that the law was on the way out, so the SCOTUS may as well kill it. If the vote is 75-25 it is a sign that Congress is of a split mind, so the SCOTUS needs to step in and sort things out.

    Any port in a storm, any tool at hand, and to hell with intellectual honesty. I am hopeful that it will again be one step too far for Roberts, but that is really grasping at straws at this point.

    Maybe someone in the administration ought to comment that Scalia is becoming demented and needs to be removed from office. The shitstorm on the right would be incredible, and it will drive Scalia into even more extreme and rigid stances, and may actually create the crisis that will get him out of there. It would be a dangerous game, but one we are stuck playing.

  163. 163
    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    They invalidated the Fourth Amendment when they ruled that it was legal to pull over any car for the crime of passing a certain point, and search it if the cops felt like it, and further that evidence was admissible in court even if it was obtained illegally. Printed copies of the Constitution may still contain the “Fourth Amendment”, but thanks to SCOTUS (and MADD), it’s a dead letter.

  164. 164
    fuckwit says:

    I’m now convinced the SCOTUS will vote to uphold VRA. And they wil do this specifically because of Scalia letting his robes turn white in public. The other Justices, even the right-wing ones, will just recoil in horror, and will vote to uphold VRA.

    This is the same way that middle-class moderates run screaming from the teabagger and white supremacist rethugs.

    This is how you deal with extremist assholes. You give them plenty of space to display their extremist assholery openly and broadly, and then you wait for them to discredit themselves.

  165. 165
    SFAW says:

    @MomSense:

    I found that statement shocking.

    No less shocking than Scalia’s semi-long-winded “explanation”/diatribe from the session. I just read it over at Digby’s place; almost the entire thing was Scalia, in essence, talking about political considerations vis-a-vis the VRA. Not a whole lot about the constitutionality.

    It looked like the kind of thing a Senator or Preznitential candidate might say when he was running for something, or trying to excite the rubes.

    Not that it would ever happen, but what are the criteria for impeachment of someone in the Judicial branch? “High crimes and misdemeanors”? Or something as simple as “He’s acting like a Legislator, and not a very sane or smart one at that, it’s long past time to put him out to pasture”?

    Or maybe, FSM willing, in a week or two, we’ll hear “Habemus Nino“, accompanied by white smoke, from Teh Vatican? Anybody here have any BFFs in the College of Cardinals?

  166. 166
    SFAW says:

    @fuckwit:

    I tend to think you’re wrong, but it will be interesting to see if Roberts follows your lead, similar to what he seemed to have done re: the ACA. Of course, in that decision, he used some bullshit logic to give himself a fig leaf, but it still ended up going the “correct” way. (No, I’m not ignoring the wide-open door he left for a later challenge.) This also assumes that he cares about his “legacy.”

    I hope you’re right, however. Just not getting my hopes up.

  167. 167
    elf says:

    shorter Scalia: elect a black man for POTUS, we will just have to teach you a lesson about uppitiness

  168. 168
    Tonal Crow says:

    I suspect that this is the unusual case where you can infer the outcome from what happens during orals. That is, I think Scalia lost Kennedy’s vote by disclosing his true motives in open court. Gawd nutters, don’t stop flying your freak flags now!

  169. 169
    Zach says:

    The difference is that as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Scalia’s words have a good chance at becoming the law of the land.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments are closed.