Scalia Keeping It Real

[g5000]

Bull-looney, Did you not see the efforts to suppress the vote in last year's election? Are you in denial or do you choose to lie by omission?

It is pretty well known around here that I am opposed to Voter ID. No one has fought against them on this board more vehemently than I. Ask around.


I repeat, you do not need the Act to fight an unjust law. A Voter ID law was overturned in Pennsylvania during this last election cycle. Pennsylvania is not subject to the Voting Rights Act.

QED.


So the only lie of omission around here is the one which says you need the Act to fight unjust voting laws.

This act prevents a situation where individuals are left to file lawsuits after they have been fucked over. Instead, it prevents assholes from instituting bullshit regulations in the first place.

Scalia's comments are fucked up by any standard.

All lawsuits are filed after someone has been fucked over. If there is a "bullshit regulation" which presents an imminent danger, judges have the authority to issue injunctions until the case is decided. That is exactly what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did with that state's Voter ID law.

The VRA allows the Executive to exercise powers that belong to the Judiciary, and it is ridiculous to continue the practice forever.

 

[The Rabbi]

This act prevents a situation where individuals are left to file lawsuits after they have been fucked over. Instead, it prevents assholes from instituting bullshit regulations in the first place.

Scalia's comments are fucked up by any standard.

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

It does exactly that. Ask both Alabama Senators. They both voted to continue it. Why would they do that?

Non sequitur.
They did that because they are afraid of the civil rights entitlement lobby and this is a cheap way to buy them off.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Fuck.

 

[Polk]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

But it doesn't say they have the right to vote any damn time they want or to have a ballot in any language they want.

That's not what's at issue in this case.

 

[Polk]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

Then how do you square the VRA only applying to certian states and not the country as a whole, with the equal protection of the 14th Amendment? Come on this should be easy.

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It protects people, not the states. In fact, the language specifically singles out violations of rights by the states as the concern.

 

[Polk]

It is pretty well known around here that I am opposed to Voter ID. No one has fought against them on this board more vehemently than I. Ask around.


I repeat, you do not need the Act to fight an unjust law. A Voter ID law was overturned in Pennsylvania during this last election cycle. Pennsylvania is not subject to the Voting Rights Act.

QED.


So the only lie of omission around here is the one which says you need the Act to fight unjust voting laws.

This act prevents a situation where individuals are left to file lawsuits after they have been fucked over. Instead, it prevents assholes from instituting bullshit regulations in the first place.

Scalia's comments are fucked up by any standard.

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

There is no constitutional requirement that "different states and locales" are placed on the same "footings".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

Then how do you square the VRA only applying to certian states and not the country as a whole, with the equal protection of the 14th Amendment? Come on this should be easy.

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It protects people, not the states. In fact, the language specifically singles out violations of rights by the states as the concern.

Slapshot to OK's head.

 

[Polk]

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

It does exactly that. Ask both Alabama Senators. They both voted to continue it. Why would they do that?

Non sequitur.
They did that because they are afraid of the civil rights entitlement lobby and this is a cheap way to buy them off.

Yeah, I'm sure Sessions and Shelby are really afraid of the "civil rights entitlement lobby".

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does exactly that. Ask both Alabama Senators. They both voted to continue it. Why would they do that?

Non sequitur.
They did that because they are afraid of the civil rights entitlement lobby and this is a cheap way to buy them off.

Yeah, I'm sure Sessions and Shelby are really afraid of the "civil rights entitlement lobby".

I wonder why The Rabbi is afraid of it.

 

[Polk]

Also, Scalia's reputation for brilliance comes from the fact that he's quotable. What you'll notice if you dig even a little bit, his clever lines often undermine his own point. Look no further than the last time this issue was before the court.

Two days later, at the argument in a big voting rights case, Justice Scalia seemed to violate his rule against citing foreign law. Expressing skepticism about the significance of the 98-0 vote by which the Senate reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, Justice Scalia said, “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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=1&

Even if you thought the Voting Rights Act is bad law, this is still a really stupid argument. Apply the reasoning to a criminal case. We actually require unanimity to convict (except in Louisiana), but Scalia would say that's someone unusual.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is pretty well known around here that I am opposed to Voter ID. No one has fought against them on this board more vehemently than I. Ask around.


I repeat, you do not need the Act to fight an unjust law. A Voter ID law was overturned in Pennsylvania during this last election cycle. Pennsylvania is not subject to the Voting Rights Act.

QED.


So the only lie of omission around here is the one which says you need the Act to fight unjust voting laws.

This act prevents a situation where individuals are left to file lawsuits after they have been fucked over. Instead, it prevents assholes from instituting bullshit regulations in the first place.

Scalia's comments are fucked up by any standard.

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

Rabbi, you don't have a clue what is and what is not constitutional. Sadly, neither does the Supreme Court since the vote is usually five vote one way and the other four vote the opposite.

 

[The Rabbi]

This act prevents a situation where individuals are left to file lawsuits after they have been fucked over. Instead, it prevents assholes from instituting bullshit regulations in the first place.

Scalia's comments are fucked up by any standard.

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

There is no constitutional requirement that "different states and locales" are placed on the same "footings".

All citizens are guaranteed equal protection. DOesn't matter if you live in Westchester or the Bronx.

 

[The Rabbi]

This act prevents a situation where individuals are left to file lawsuits after they have been fucked over. Instead, it prevents assholes from instituting bullshit regulations in the first place.

Scalia's comments are fucked up by any standard.

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

Rabbi, you don't have a clue what is and what is not constitutional. Sadly, neither does the Supreme Court since the vote is usually five vote one way and the other four vote the opposite.

This is coming from a guy who supports infringing the 2A. That's rich.
But thanks for equating me with the Supreme Court Justices.

 

[Polk]

You realize citizens and states aren't the same thing, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

You realize citizens and states aren't the same thing, right?

You realize it doesn't matter, right?
Equal footing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

It actually doesn't do any of that, but thanks for playing.

The act is patently unconstitutional as it puts different states and locales on different footings. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all citizens. No one will be denied anything when this turd gets overturned.

Rabbi, you don't have a clue what is and what is not constitutional. Sadly, neither does the Supreme Court since the vote is usually five vote one way and the other four vote the opposite.

This is coming from a guy who supports infringing the 2A. That's rich.
But thanks for equating me with the Supreme Court Justices.

Anytime, partisan hacks in jeans or in robes are still partisan hacks.

BTW, the Second is not sacrosanct, it has limits much as the First.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, you don't have a clue what is and what is not constitutional. Sadly, neither does the Supreme Court since the vote is usually five vote one way and the other four vote the opposite.

This is coming from a guy who supports infringing the 2A. That's rich.
But thanks for equating me with the Supreme Court Justices.

Anytime, partisan hacks in jeans or in robes are still partisan hacks.

BTW, the Second is not sacrosanct, it has limits much as the First.

No one argues it doesnt. But the limits must demonstrably further an interest of the state. Nothing proposed does that as even its proponents admit they will be ineffective.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

Then how do you square the VRA only applying to certian states and not the country as a whole, with the equal protection of the 14th Amendment? Come on this should be easy.

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It protects people, not the states. In fact, the language specifically singles out violations of rights by the states as the concern.

Excuse me, are the states not comprised of people? Are you saying the federal government has the right to treat the people in the various states differently from other states. You do understand the concept of a republican form of government, don't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is why Supreme Court judges have lifetime tenure. Scalia is right on. The screams you hear are pigs getting stuck.
Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia?s ?racial entitlement? argument | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Civil rights leaders are up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's skeptical questions about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that brought an end to Jim Crow-era racial discrimination at the polls in the South.

In oral arguments over the law on Wednesday, Scalia, a stalwart of the court's conservative wing, suggested that the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly reauthorized in 2006 by Congress because the nation's politicians were afraid to oppose a "racial entitlement."

Scalia said that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in the past 50 years, more and more senators supported it, even though the problem of racial discrimination at the polls has decreased over that time. "Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this," he said. "I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

More at the source.

Scalia is all about Scalia and his pals the Kochs.

See: Judicial Restraint -- Definition of Judicial Restraint

Scalia's judicial philosophy seems framed more on who benefits than on staree decisis, and of course on how much attention he gets.

 

[g5000]

No one argues it doesnt. But the limits must demonstrably further an interest of the state. Nothing proposed does that as even its proponents admit they will be ineffective.

Exactly. This is the most bizarre aspect of the assault weapons ban debate. Everyone knows going in that such a ban will have virtually no impact on violent crime.

Gun controllers want to further restrain the freedoms of law-abiding citizens just so they can FEEL better!

It does not get more totalitarian than that.