|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Scalia legislates from the bench...|
Scalia legislates from the bench...
Posted - 3/2/2013 9:18:40 AM | show profile | flag this post
Justice Scalia ignores the fact that the Senate voted 98-0 to restore the Voting Rights Act in 2006. He thinks they were all duped into giving those crazy minorities "racial entitlements" like voting. Yes, just because blacks and Hispanics are in voting districts where they have to wait several hours to cast their ballots they think they have some sort of Constitutionally given right to vote like white people. It's not like they have jobs to go to, those welfare sucking leeches. So Scalia says that sometimes these problems can't be fixed by the normal political process, so he has anointed himself to bypass Congress and do the right thing, which is to magically take us back to the good old days of 1961. Nice to hear a Justice actually admit he doesn't care what Congress does, they are just kissing up to the people who elected them. It's up to appointed officials like himself who need to really set policy in this country. If that ain't judicial activism, tell me what is?
Posted - 3/2/2013 12:11:23 PM | show profile | flag this post
Scalia is wrong
and downright outright racist--on so many levels. There was this exchange on the Daily Show:
JON STEWART, HOST: Does he, you know, I only read some of the transcripts of what he was saying. And he was saying certain thing like, “We've got to get rid of this because it's one of the last vestiges of racial preferences,” the Voting Rights Act I guess.
MADDOW: He said that, he said when Congress re-upped the Voting Rights Act, they looked into whether or not it was still necessary. Ten months of debate, 21 hearings, 15,000 pages of evidence, and in the Senate they voted 98-0 yeah we still need that. But he said, “That vote really, what does that vote mean?”
STEWART: Didn’t he say something like, “We told them to fix this in 2006 but clearly they won’t or can't, so we have to do it for them?”
MADDOW: Because it’s not, it’s not a real vote. It’s a racial entitlement now. Voting is a racial entitlement, something that you are entitled to on the basis of your race.
"Wait a second. Do you know how that sounds?"
What Scalia actually said was “It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political process.”
It's bad when wingnuts here say crap like that without a source or attribution--but this guys a SCOTUS Justice. Voting is not a right? Not even a privelage?? It's a race-based entitlement?? Good Lord. What year is this??
Posted - 3/3/2013 11:22:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
Scalia is the farthest thing FROM racist you'll ever find
Justice Scalia is straight down the middle. He doesn't subscribe the the "social justice" school of Supreme Court justices (read: liberal activism). His approach is to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION PRECISELY.
Scalia could be termed an originalist or strict constructionist. His philosophy is that, in addition to describing and specifying the organization and operation of the federal government, the Constitution is bound by the so-called "enumerated powers"...those areas that are specifically by the document as being within the purview of federal jurisdiction.
The wording of the 10th Ameidment is a perfect description of Scalia's approach: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Scalia believes there are vast areas in which the Constitution is "silent" and that in those areas the national legislature is free to pass any law it sees fit UNLESS it conflicts with any provision of the Constitution as amended.
That doesn't mean liberal sh*thouse lawyer interpretations.
There are currently four justices that DO subscribe...in varying degrees...to the "social justice" school. I don't need to name them...their identities are well known.
Posted - 3/3/2013 1:45:20 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruise? You're right to a point...
Scalia IS "an originalist or strict constructionist"...and sometimes, many times, that works out just fine. Even when it comes to the 10th amendment. I'll grant you all of that.
Here's the rub. In my opinion; he, and you, sometimes labor under the impression that the Constitution stops with the Bill of Rights. It doesn't. Under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, 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.”
That's "denied or abridged". When any State or municipality keeps blacks from voting, or even makes it more difficult to vote--isn't that un-constitutional?? Therefore---being the "originalist or strict constructionist" that Scalia is--he should bend over backwards to see that Amendment enforced.
But he didn't do that. He called blacks voting a "racial entitlement." Say Whaaaa? Voting is NOT an entitlement. And race (according to the Constitution that you and he want strict adherance to) shouldn't even be a factor.
For him to put RACIAL before "entitlement" does make him sound racist in the first place, and makes him wrong that voting isn't a Right in the second place. Think of this purely hypothetical; Atlanta passes a law stating blacks can vote without ID whenever they want to. But whites have to prove where they live, show a birth certificate, and a drivers license. IF that happened people like you and Scalia would be throwing a frackin shit fit. See my point??
Posted - 3/3/2013 2:07:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
"He called blacks voting a "racial entitlement"
I don't know where you got your information but all I can find on the Internet is left-leaning to radical left wing sites slamming Scalia for something I'm sure he didn't say...or was taken WAY out of context. This is the all-too-frequent tactic of the left.
I cannot find a single ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT (not some left wing interpretation) of Scalia's comments. If you can point me toward one I'd appreciate it.
Posted - 3/3/2013 2:17:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
"the Constitution (doesn't) stop(s) with the Bill of Rights"
Actually, it DOES. The Constitution and its amendments lay out the foundation of our body of law but leave the national legislature free to pass whatever laws they see fit SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONFLICT with any provision of the basic document or its amendments.
The onus, therefore, is on congress and the president to see that any bill advanced and signed into law precisely comports with that.
It is the role of the Court to assure that if any measure tilts the balance in favor of one side or the other, it is neutralized to maintain conformity.
Posted - 3/3/2013 2:18:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
Scalia is the worst Justice EVER...
He is the originator of the decision in Bush v. Gore, widely considered one of if not the worst Supreme Court decision in history. He is NOT a strict constructionist. He interprets the Constitution to his own agenda. Besides, if the Constitution were meant to be strictly "interpreted", why do we even need a Supreme Court? The fact is, the Constitution was written to be vague on purpose which is why it has lasted so long. He is an ultra right wing zealot who sees the world and the Constitution the way he feels. Period.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 3/3/2013 3:00:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
here ya go 2oldcruztwit
12-96. Shelby County v. Holder
Scalia comment starts on p.46 line 8. The word "racial" is on page 47 line 4 and "entitlement" is the first word on line 5.
As for Scalia's argument, it's quite out of touch (as well as racist). Besides, the Voting Rights Act has a "bail out" provision where the counties under the "preclearance" can be removed from the list. Many counties have already succeeded in getting out from under preclearance. There is a remedy in place. Shelby County, unfortunately, has been unable to meet the standard other counties in other states have been able to achieve.
Think of it like a drug addict who now claims to be clean and sober. An employer or family memeber, etc, is willing to give them a chance, but they have to pass one or a series of drug tests in order to get back in their good graces. If the addict fails, he/she will remain under tight supervision and likely lose the job, family and even their freedom. If you fail to show you are now a responsible, you can't claim it doesn't matter anymore like Shelby Co is doing.
Posted - 3/3/2013 3:08:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruise, there are times
I honestly don't know why you post without thinking first. You're really really bad at this. I mean really really bad at this. We're journalists.
(you) "He called blacks voting a "racial entitlement" I don't know where you got your information but all I can find on the Internet is left-leaning to radical left wing sites slamming Scalia for something I'm sure he didn't say...or was taken WAY out of context. This is the all-too-frequent tactic of the left.
I cannot find a single ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT (not some left wing interpretation) of Scalia's comments. If you can point me toward one I'd appreciate it."
Well here's a journalism basic 101 revelation for ya--why not try the SUPREME COURT?? ("I don't know where you got your information") Oh, I dunno...the source?? The Court?? They publish the arguments.
Page 46. Scalia. "This Court doesn't like to get involved in -- in racial questions such as this one. It's something that can be left -- left to Congress."
REALLY?? YA THINK?? So when Congress voted 98-0 to renew the Voting Rights you didn't think congress acted on something???
(back to you) "slamming Scalia for something I'm sure he didn't say..." REALLY?? Page 47. "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."
SO--When you say (quote) "I cannot find a single ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT (not some left wing interpretation) of Scalia's comments." You're either lazy, or dumb, or just lying.
And your "the Constitution (doesn't) stop(s) with the Bill of Rights" Actually, it DOES."
NO NO NO and NO. Any amendment to the Consitution is a part of the Constitution. Thought we all learned that in grade school. Please, for your own sake, again, quit while you're behind. We're journalists. You're obviously nothing more than a 'how to manual' freelance writer with delusions of being a newsie. It's a pretty select club, and you're not invited.
Posted - 3/3/2013 3:27:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
and in 3....2...1...
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 3/3/2013 4:50:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
You can listen as
you read along with the transcript, too 2oldcruztwit
Posted - 3/3/2013 5:10:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, you must be wrong..
I mean actual transcripts, quotes, audio...the Supreme Court site that actually re-prints what everyone said...Oh no, don't tell me that contradicts EVERYTHING what cruise says happened...
Posted - 3/3/2013 7:56:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
I said Bill of Rights and meant to say all of the amendments.
But with that correction, EVERYTHING I said is accurate.
Posted - 3/3/2013 11:24:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
progressives...here we go again
Many of you seem to be using the same tactics your brethren used in the last election. As you did to Romney you're now doing to Scalia, tossing out accusations with the intent to defame. No need for truth. Just throw it out there and if you say it enough it'll take on the appearance of 'fact'. Sad what some american 'journalists' have become.
Posted - 3/4/2013 1:10:21 AM | show profile | flag this post
Hey, Dipsy Doodle, if you take issue with the content of the Supreme Court's transcripts, that's *your* problem, not journalism's problem.
Posted - 3/4/2013 9:43:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
I finally had time to read the transcript
and you people couldn't be more wrong.
The thrust of Scalia's comments had very little to do with "racial entitlements" and a WHOLE LOT to do with treating different states differently. It could just as easily have been about requiring different states to enact different laws about...for example...who can have a college education because states had different graduation rates.
That is anathema to the Constitution...and to Scalia.
The thrust was the imbalance...or inherent unfairness...of the of the law even though most in the senate supported it.
And, yes, I know the original document had this three-fifths of a person thing but that was abolished in the 1800s.
But the left wing on here supports treating different states differently so you people speciously criticize Scalia's "racial entitlements" phrase to take the focus off of the real issue.
Posted - 3/4/2013 9:59:23 AM | show profile | flag this post
Cruiser thinks Indians aren't American
Sure, the 14th amendment made Black full citizens.
But it explicitly excluded non-taxed Indians / native americans.
At the time, under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, Indian tribes are classified as "domestic dependent nations," and therefore, Indians were tribal citizenships, not American citizens.
There has been no, REPEAT NO, amendment to the constitution on this matter.
OMG! so how can Indians vote? Why so they call themselves Americans?
ITS NOT IN THE CONSITUTION!!!!1! Originalism!!!1!! Only the text matters .. not SOCIAILIST interprtetation! Commie legistlation!!1!!
well that is exactly what happened.
Courts and congress changed it.
read all about it:
Interesting to note Americans 130 years ago were more progressive than cons today.
Cruiser's only possible reply to this is : Native Americans are illegals and should be stripped of citizenship.
Posted - 3/4/2013 1:49:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
Justice Scalia did not, IMHO, call the Voting Rights Act a "racial entitlement". What he did say was that it runs the same risk as racial entitlements, that they will continue long after the situation has been resolved. In other words they will outlive their need. He said Congress will never vote to end them, after all who wants to vote against "Voting Rights"?
He pointed out what so many of us already know, that once a law is passed it lives forever. Programs are created to address a specific issue and then continue long after the issue has been addressed. At a time when our government is broke and running further and further in the red every program in existence needs to be examined to determine if the need is still there. But the Catch-22 is that any legislator who dares suggest we no longer need a government program is instantly painted as hater; someone who hates children, minorities, animals, trees, or whatever the program "helps".
Maybe if our legislators started actually legislating and not just trying to keep their jobs there would be no need for the Supreme Court to listen to cases like this one.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 3/4/2013 5:45:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
apparently someone didn't read all the words
in this thread. Very well. I'll explain it again.
The problem with the argument that "racial entitlements" "will continue long after the situation has been resolved" is that there is a remedy, a process, contained in the Act, where a county/locale can get out from under the "preclearance" of the Voting Rights Act.
"Terminating coverage under the Act's special provisions
Section 4 also provides that a jurisdiction may terminate or "bailout" from coverage under the Act's special provisions. Originally enacted in 1965 as a means to remedy any possible over inclusiveness resulting from application of the trigger formula, Congress amended this procedure in 1982 so jurisdictions that meet the statutory standards can obtain relief. The amendment, which took effect on August 5, 1984, establishes an "objective" measure to determine whether the jurisdiction is entitled to "bailout".
A jurisdiction seeking to "bailout" must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court held that any jurisdiction currently required to make Section 5 submissions may seek to "bailout" from coverage if it meets the statutory criteria set forth below."
This page also list the jurisdictions that have been "bailed out" including:
Wake County, North Carolina - January 23, 1967
City of Kings Mountain, North Carolina - October 22, 2010
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 3/5/2013 9:50:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
Since the VRA already has provisions for jurisdictions to get themselves out from under the preclearance status, there is no need for the arrogant a$$ Scalia to wave his hand and eliminate a law that protects rights. His is essentially saying it's ok to discriminate.
We will know when the law is no longer needed when the covered jurisdictions have met the requirements for "bail out" as so many other jurisdictions have already done.
Posted - 3/5/2013 11:28:06 AM | show profile | flag this post
Show of hands
How many of you actually think that anyone would vote against "voting rights" ever? Yeah that's what I thought.
Posted - 3/5/2013 12:29:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
"essentially saying it's ok to discriminate"
No, what he's saying in fact is that it's neither necessary nor desirable to clutter up the body of US law with statutes that give preferences to one group or another, or treat different groups differently under the law. The Constitution itself establishes the equality of all citizens.
Posted - 3/5/2013 1:25:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
scalia speaks the truth. which outrages the left.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 3/5/2013 2:10:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
The preclearance requirements that Shelby County is fighting can be terminated if they achieve the requirements for "bail out". Other jurisdictions have been able to accomplish this, as I noted in a previous post. If other places can achieve non-discrimination, why can't Shelby Co?
The trigger for lifting the preclearance is spelled out in the act. If those presently covered achieve the requirement, then the sections will be moot.
Some reading for those who clearly don't understand this case ... blackedtaped, 2oldcruztwit and conjohn:
"Among those provisions applying only to covered jurisdictions, Section 5 of the Act required that either the Attorney General or a three-judge federal court in Washington, D.C. approve in advance (“preclear”) any proposed change to voting or election practices or procedures in a covered jurisdiction to insure that the proposed change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” This preclearance requirement of Section 5 was originally enacted for five years. Recognizing that Section 4(b)’s formula designating covered jurisdictions might be both over- and under-inclusive, the Act included procedures for a “covered” jurisdiction to “bailout” of coverage and for federal courts to “bail in” to coverage a non-covered jurisdiction."
"Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable."
In Sec 4:
"A jurisdiction seeking to "bailout" must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On June 22, 2009, the Supreme Court held that any jurisdiction currently required to make Section 5 submissions may seek to "bailout" from coverage if it meets the statutory criteria set forth below.
The successful "bailout" applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years:
-No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination;
-All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation;
-No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court;
-There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination;
-There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice;
-There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and
-Federal examiners have not been assigned;
-There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated."
Read the act:
The 2006 legislation:
Posted - 3/5/2013 2:28:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
Ok "It's just TV folks" now write "black".