Scalia Keeping It Real

[Wry Catcher]

Legal realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Some food for thought. Then we can speak to the issue of 'assault weapons' and their place in the law framed by Justice Holmes book, The Common Law wherein he wrote: "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience"

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

"Gun controllers" are those who own and market guns. Speaking only for myself, I support a citizens right to own a gun to protect his home or business; to engage in sport and to hunt or collect.

I oppose weapons created for the primary purpose of killing large numbers of human beings and support legislation to control their sale as well as large capacity magazines. I support legislation which would require anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his/her custody and control a background check and a license issued by the persons home state, and only valid within the home state or states which establish compacts with the home state.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

When the people of various states violate federal law, then the federal government is empowered to force the state law and the peoples' actions into accordance with federal law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...



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?

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

You understand that isnt an answer to his question, right?
And i the link I posted it shows that the gov't must accord states equal treatment, save extreme circumstances. We are not in extreme circumstances in regard to voting rights. Therefore the legislation should be overturned.

 

[OKTexas]

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...



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?

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

The VRA which is the subject of the thread empowers the AG office to bypass judicial review and unilaterally set aside a law properly passed by a state. A prime example as to how this power is used as a political weapon is when AG Holder waited 2 years till just prior to the elections to set aside the TX voter ID law, where that decision couldn't be challenged in the courts prior to the election. The same law has been upheld by SCOTUS in other states and I'm sure TX will prevail in their challenge, but at what cost?

 

[OKTexas]

Reading the 14th Amendment helps...



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?

When the people of various states violate federal law, then the federal government is empowered to force the state law and the peoples' actions into accordance with federal law.

The law has to be uniformly applied, the VRA is not.

 

[Polk]

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

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

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Polk]

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?

The federal government treats people in different states differently all the time.

 

[Polk]

It's also interesting that people in this thread keep harping on the 14th Amendment, since it's the 15th that's relevant here...

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.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

 

[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.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

Because America has surely never had a problem with discrimination on the basis of race...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

You understand that isnt an answer to his question, right?
And i the link I posted it shows that the gov't must accord states equal treatment, save extreme circumstances. We are not in extreme circumstances in regard to voting rights. Therefore the legislation should be overturned.

So you say. If you showed up and your ID was refused, and or you had to wait 7 hours in line you might feel differently.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

Because America has surely never had a problem with discrimination on the basis of race...

Then extant laws shoud have been enforced. There was no need for a new one.

Making laws to protect certain groups is ludicrous.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

You understand that isnt an answer to his question, right?
And i the link I posted it shows that the gov't must accord states equal treatment, save extreme circumstances. We are not in extreme circumstances in regard to voting rights. Therefore the legislation should be overturned.

So you say. If you showed up and your ID was refused, and or you had to wait 7 hours in line you might feel differently.

Then you would have the same recourse to the law as anyone else.

By the way, this waiting in line thing is just wonderfully silly. Do only minorities have to wait in line? Should we put them at the front of the line to make up for having to sit at the back of the bus?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Yeah....not enough people enjoy Scalia's stand-up routine!!

Tony Scalia; LIVE!!! 1​

Tony Scalia; LIVE!!! 2​

 

[OriginalShroom]

Left Winger, Dana Milbank, has his own heros on the SCotUS, whose behavior, which is praises, is as bad, if not worse, than the behavior he condemns.

Dana Milbank: Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles - The Washington Post

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

It is possible to take an unconstitutional voting law to court without the Voting Rights Act.

And how do we know this?

Because states that are not subject to the Act have done so.

The Voting Rights Act achieved what it was meant to achieve. It is time to celebrate it and put it to bed.

Of course they can take an unconstitutional voting law to court. And while that possibly drags on for years, scores of minorities are disenfranchised.

Uh-uh. Forget it. For once in the entire history of the US Federal Government, they pass a proactive law nipping a potential problem in the bud from the onset. I think every state in the union should be subject to the Voting Rights Act actually.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

You and Scalia will be the first ones begging for "racial entitlements" once whites become a minority.