UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (45) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: intercst Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1977291  
Subject: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/1/2013 9:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 25
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/03/01/scalia-...

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who startled colleagues this week with a reference to “racial entitlements,” displays the same mindset as segregationist U.S. senators did when they fought civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s, a powerful congressman and movement veteran said Friday.

The reference, as the high court heard a legal challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, “absolutely shocked” South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, a senior member of the Democratic House leadership, he told Huffington Post in an interview.

“I’m not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven’t been in a long time,” Clyburn said of Scalia’s words from the bench. “What Justice Scalia said, to me, was ‘The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain’t got no concerns for me because I’m white and proud.’”

</snip>


intercst
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wessex99 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863005 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/1/2013 11:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I totally discount the "white and proud" comment, but Scalia shows, as usually is the case, that he is republican filth extraordinaire.

Wessex

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863013 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 10:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"

The reference, as the high court heard a legal challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, “absolutely shocked” South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, a senior member of the Democratic House leadership, he told Huffington Post in an interview.

“I’m not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven’t been in a long time,” Clyburn said of Scalia’s words from the bench. “What Justice Scalia said, to me, was ‘The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain’t got no concerns for me because I’m white and proud.’”

"


All Clyburn has got is the racism hammer, so everything he sees are racist nails.

If people knew the facts they might understand what Scalia is saying.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vetiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863014 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"If people knew the facts they might understand what Scalia is saying."

Which is????

v.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863017 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 10:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That an ammendment like the fifteenth should protect everybody's right to vote.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: icono5 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863027 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 23
From your initial reply, SP1, it appeared you were going to clarify the "facts" about Scalia, in particular. As has been pointed out repeatedly, a century of egregious, well-documented, race-motivated vote-blocking necessitated the VWA, without which the 15th Amendment was an empty promise in certain locales. Yet during oral arguments this week, Scalia suggested that he knew what "all" national legislators were thinking during the 2006 renewal, and thus could substitute his arbitrary interpretation for theirs. So much for a meaningful separation of powers. In recent years, we've seen a greater rate of open political rantings from the ostensible "woe to judicial activism" justice. What do we make of that?

To some of us, Scalia's cultural condescension betrays him from time to time. It's mighty convenient having a theory of jurisprudence that posits 1787 as the legal high point from which all constitutional Truth flows. Only affluent old white men contributed to the national discussion then, and Scalia seems more than a bit nostalgic for a time when discordant cultural voices seeking social justice didn't "exist" because they were not heard.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863028 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That you people are so blinded by your victimology and lust for bending the rules in your favor you've forgotten that the law is supposed to be color blind.

Actually, strike that. Most liberals think the law should favor group A and punish group B.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863034 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
That's a pant load. Either the principles of equal protection under the law means something or they don't. Scalia's using language intended to provoke exactly this kind of response: he's goading people like you into arguing that yes, we need to have set asides that lift one group above another even though there is either no reason to do so or there are adequate protections in place already.

In other words, he's troll-baiting left wingers to admit they'd like to toss the rules and impose their opinions. left wingers always fall for that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863035 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That you people are so blinded by your victimology and lust for bending the rules in your favor you've forgotten that the law is supposed to be color blind.

Actually, strike that. Most liberals think the law should favor group A and punish group B.
________________________

That could not be more true.

And any call for a color blind society is met with the meowing of punks and calls of racism.

Of course these calls are by people who would never do that are not partisan and are even handed in their criticisms. They are open minded folks and not so sold-out to a candidate that they are no longer really anything but a caricature

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863036 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Spot on dope!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nigelwhalmsley Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863037 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Most liberals think the law should favor group A and punish group B"

You should avoid trying to explain what most liberals think, since you don't actually know, and don't think that way yourself. You always seem get it wrong.

Stick to trying to explain how right-wingers think. That's a bigger challenge anyway...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NemesisToLibs Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863039 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"You should avoid trying to explain what most liberals think, since you don't actually know, and don't think that way yourself. You always seem get it wrong.

Stick to trying to explain how right-wingers think. That's a bigger challenge anyway... "

Nigel showing his ignorance again...

Actions speak louder than thought...you are wrong again.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863040 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actions speak louder than thought
_________________________
LOL

So does Nigel!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863042 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 29
Putting aside the fact that Rachel Maddow nailed it in describing Scalia as a "troll" (of the internet type), I have to admit he has a certain point regarding the anachronistic quality of the Voting Rights Act. It is a relic of a bygone era when the greatest threat to voting rights was institutionlized segregation and direct discrimination based on nothing but race.

The fact is that, today, the greatest threats to voting rights are far more cynical and insidious than anything that existed in the Jim Crow-era South, and racial discrimination is really only incidental to the partisan electioneering that goes on today. Instead of poll workers selectively extorting poll taxes or literacy tests by black voters, the system today threatens to undermine the mechanism of Democracy to EVERYONE ... most obviously in the form of longer lines and the complete lack of a paper trail between everyone and their vote. Rather than directly targeting minority voters these threats target entire precincts or even states based on the party in power at the state level.

I'd suggest a reevaluation of the VRA based on a couple basic principles:

1. The VRA should apply equally to all jurisdictions in all states.
2. The scope of the VRA should be elevated beyond the 15th Amendment, which is focused (too much, IMO) on racial discrimination. Protections of rights for minorities should be no more important than protection of equal access to voting for everyone.
3. The VRA should establish performance specifications for gauging the accessibility to vote. Wait times, processing standards for absentee ballots, all of these should be subject to audit for purposes of ensuring that no one is subject to undue hardship in exercising their right to vote.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: icono5 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863044 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Hey, Dope. Since you don't want to be lumped in with mindless reactionaries, you're better off not engaging in said lumping yourself. Any post leading with a "you people" reference suggests little understanding of how diverse and multifaceted your adversaries might be. There are--believe it or not, and you apparently don't--progressive motives in the mix beyond crass political self-interest.

There is considerable disagreement about whether we've yet reached a genuine "start-over" point on civil rights (including voting rights). But here's a tip: broadly slurring civil-rights advocates as foolish, selfish cheaters won't advance the timetable one iota.

Steve


-------------------------------

"That you people are so blinded by your victimology and lust for bending the rules in your favor you've forgotten that the law is supposed to be color blind.

Actually, strike that. Most liberals think the law should favor group A and punish group B."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863047 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 12:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
All that would simply create an extra judicial system that is not warranted under the Constitution.

The same way SCOTUS has tossed out some, but not all recent voter ID laws is the same way any other challenges to such voter changes should be handled - on a case by case basis via a court petition.

It makes no sense for some states to continue to be punished for what they were in 1972 while other states todaycould potentially be doing worse yet they face no such approval requirement.

I believe the quote was that only 1 of the last 270+ such requests for changes under this law were rejected. That seems to suggest those states are not doing anything illegal under the law.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: icono5 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863049 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Mmm . . . I'm not sure your characterization of Scalia's behavior does the justice any favors. A justice on the USSC should do better than resort to partisan hackery. Of course, that general aspiration has never deterred Scalia in the slightest. :)

If he'd like to run for public office, Scalia is welcome to resign his current duties and do so. Short of that, he's no more capable of mind-reading individual legislators than you or I would be.

Steve
--------------------

"That's a pant load. Either the principles of equal protection under the law means something or they don't. Scalia's using language intended to provoke exactly this kind of response: he's goading people like you into arguing that yes, we need to have set asides that lift one group above another even though there is either no reason to do so or there are adequate protections in place already.

In other words, he's troll-baiting left wingers to admit they'd like to toss the rules and impose their opinions. left wingers always fall for that."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863052 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
To some of us, Scalia's cultural condescension betrays him from time to time.

It's interesting that you can use the phrase "some of us" yet when someone uses "you people" they are called out on it. Oh well. You must know not only what you know, but what other people, including Scalia knows ... and when he betrays himself. Must be tough to know all that. But when you think you know everything that another knows, even if they don't say it ... it's a lot easier to judge.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vetiver Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863053 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 44
"That an ammendment like the fifteenth should protect everybody's right to vote."

SP since you seem to have had some liberal points of view in the past....

1)I would think that it was fairly obvious that the 15th amendment, by itself, was not working.

2)Inherent in your comment is that the government can't do anything unless it is intrinsically for everyone. Everyone was not having their right to vote interfered with, it was the minority population. The main emphasis was Black people in the south but section 5 also applies in Yuba County California, where the objective was to protect Mexican-Americans (several other counties in California as well). It also covers Native Americans in south Dakota and New Hampshire as well.

3)Like most civil rights legislation, the primary driver was Black folk, but everyone benefits as well with a fairer society. Doing away with property ownership requirements and poll taxes benefits poor white people as well.

4) Scalia's use of the term "entitlement" sounds like he thinks that voting is some sort of gift from the government and not the basis of a legitimate government, "Government by the people, of the People, for the People..."

5) How far do you think, in general, the republican party and their minions on the Supreme Court can take this tampering with the right to vote thing before it truly blows up in their faces, worse than just what happened in the last election?

V.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863057 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 1:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
St. Pat says

That an ammendment like the fifteenth should protect everybody's right to vote.

Apparently you haven't read the 15th Amendment.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: anniesdad Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863062 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
All that would simply create an extra judicial system that is not warranted under the Constitution.


Focusing on Shelby County, Alabama, the southern locale that brought the case.

Alabama black population is about 25%, yet there are no black statewide elected officials.

In Shelby County over the years, Sotomayor asserted, Section 5 had prevented "240 discriminatory voting laws" from taking effect. In a 2008 incident, the city of Calera in Shelby County put in place a redistricting plan that led the one African American on the city council to lose his seat. After the Justice Department forced Calera to redraw the map, the council member regained his seat.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-usa-court-votin...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863064 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1)I would think that it was fairly obvious that the 15th amendment, by itself, was not working.

2)Inherent in your comment is that the government can't do anything unless it is intrinsically for everyone. Everyone was not having their right to vote interfered with, it was the minority population. The main emphasis was Black people in the south but section 5 also applies in Yuba County California, where the objective was to protect Mexican-Americans (several other counties in California as well). It also covers Native Americans in south Dakota and New Hampshire as well.

3)Like most civil rights legislation, the primary driver was Black folk, but everyone benefits as well with a fairer society. Doing away with property ownership requirements and poll taxes benefits poor white people as well.

4) Scalia's use of the term "entitlement" sounds like he thinks that voting is some sort of gift from the government and not the basis of a legitimate government, "Government by the people, of the People, for the People..."

5) How far do you think, in general, the republican party and their minions on the Supreme Court can take this tampering with the right to vote thing before it truly blows up in their faces, worse than just what happened in the last election?


1) agree
2) agree
3) agree
4) Disagree. Or I guess I can't disagree that you think it "sounds" the way you think it sounds.

But really:

All of what is being written about Scalia this weekend omits the full context of his words.

It seems like willful omission considering that we are in the internet information age:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri...

You can dismiss this as me being an apologist for Scalia or conservatives, but he didn't say that voting is a gift.

He did say that when Congress votes on anything with racial tangents, Congress has become more and more predictable, and that if the federal government is going to currently treat one state differently than another state, that there has to be a current good reason for it.




5) If "tampering with the right to vote thing" is the same as allowing a discussion of the constitution between the Supreme Court justices, I think that the Republican party might be okay. At least as okay as they were in the last mid-term election.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863067 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Apparently you haven't read the 15th Amendment.

the one that only protects your right to vote based on your race?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Rightime Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863070 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17



All of what is being written about Scalia this weekend omits the full context of his words.

SaintPatrick1


Sotomayor was sitting right there, and she questioned his comment immediately:

“Is fairness a racial entitlement? Is protecting people’s right to vote a racial entitlement?”

are you saying she’s so lame as not to understand the context of his statements; sitting right there as she was?

Congress has become more and more predictable, and that if the federal government is going to currently treat one state differently than another state, that there has to be a current good reason for it.

And Justice Stephen Breyer responded to that very question when he said, “The disease is still there in the state, of course this is aimed at states. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others.”


And Sotomayor added, “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863074 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 3:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sotomayor was sitting right there, and she questioned his comment immediately:

“Is fairness a racial entitlement? Is protecting people’s right to vote a racial entitlement?”

are you saying she’s so lame as not to understand the context of his statements; sitting right there as she was?


No. That has nothing to do with what I am saying.


And Justice Stephen Breyer responded to that very question when he said, “The disease is still there in the state, of course this is aimed at states. What do you think the Civil War was about? Of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others.”

Scalia never said that you can't treat some states differently than others. He suggested that there has to be a cause to do so.

He also did not say that there was or was not cause to do so in this case of Shelby County. Just that there should be if it would be treated differently.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Rightime Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863077 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0



He also did not say that there was or was not cause to do so in this case of Shelby County. Just that there should be if it would be treated differently.



Right, he dodged the question.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 99lashes Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863078 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 4:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yet we have this and it is considered good entertainment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CisfU6vkLvo

We are told being proud is not a bad thing, unless you are.......the target of another's racism.

99

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863079 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No question is asked so no dodge.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Rightime Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863082 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 7:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0



No question is asked so no dodge.



An argument before the court is ipso facto a Question.

And the very argument before the court is the question of a law that treats some states different than others.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863090 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
St Pat says

"Apparently you haven't read the 15th Amendment."

the one that only protects your right to vote based on your race?

It's the law of the land.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crassfool Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863091 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 8:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
St. Pat says

Scalia never said that you can't treat some states differently than others. He suggested that there has to be a cause to do so.

He also did not say that there was or was not cause to do so in this case of Shelby County. Just that there should be if it would be treated differently.

So he was arguing some other case altogether?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863095 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
" So he was arguing some other case altogether? "

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court was hearing an argument, not making argument.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863097 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 8:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So "ipso facto" you think that this hearing should have included the exhaustive opinion of the justices?

That is not what this hearing was about.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Rightime Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863101 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 9:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0


So "ipso facto" you think that this hearing should have included the exhaustive opinion of the justices?



What Is The Case Before the Court?

Let Me Explain:

The lawsuit IS from Shelby County, Ala.

The Argument IS dire local conditions that once justified strict federal oversight of elections no longer exist

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863111 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 10:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
All that would simply create an extra judicial system that is not warranted under the Constitution.

Please explain how ensuring accessibility to vote is "not warranted under the Constitution".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863116 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/2/2013 11:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But this hearing was not one for the justices to answer questions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Rightime Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863128 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/3/2013 12:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0



this hearing was not one for the justices to answer questions.


Oh,I see...
In other words, this hearing was to accept demands from local authorities, and to abolish the authority of the supreme court of the untied states of america

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JediGALT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863135 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/3/2013 2:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Nothing wrong with being white.

Or being proud.

What IS wrong is continuing to pretend that one's party is the champion for all non-white...........yet one's party is mainly responsible for slaery being perpetuated even after emancipation.

From Detroit to Oakland, let's hope they continue to cost you people more and more and more.

JediG

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863137 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/3/2013 7:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
“I’m not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven’t been in a long time,” Clyburn said of Scalia’s words from the bench. “What Justice Scalia said, to me, was ‘The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain’t got no concerns for me because I’m white and proud.’”

As long as we are putting words in other people's mouths:

What Clyburn said, to me, was 'I have no argument therefore I will play the race card.'

It's really easy to smear people when you put words in their mouth.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: icono5 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863138 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/3/2013 7:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Your post, SP1, illustrates a key discursive problem on this board much of the time. In your eagerness to respond with the tired "I know you are, but what am I?" tactic, you ignore the deliberate difference in scope between "you people"--a broadly categorical slur--and "some of us," an easily supportable contention, since "some" may encompass as few as three.

What we need more of here, IMHO, is thoughtful parsing of language. Yes, that will lead to some pettiness and nit-picking, but the latter is far preferable to silly attempts at instant dismissal of credibility. Gaining adherents to policy preferences is hard work--so let's work a little harder.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863142 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/3/2013 9:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No. Wrong again. The hearing was for the plaintiffs ro make their case.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintPatrick1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863143 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/3/2013 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"
you ignore the deliberate difference in scope between "you people"--a broadly categorical slur--and "some of us," an easily supportable contention, since "some" may encompass as few as three.

"

The example was not a slur. "People" may encompass three as well.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hawkwin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863307 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/4/2013 9:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Your reply to me does not dispute my statement that the extra judicial system is not warranted under the Constition.

In fact, SCOTUS has already ruled such previously on this issue, by 8-1.

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-other-crucial-civil-ri...

Didn't the Supreme Court come close to striking down Section 5 before?

Yes. In a 2009 case called Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Texas v. Holder [25], or NAMUDNO for short, the Court didn't address the constitutionality of Section 5 — but it did suggest how it might rule in the future.

"The evil that (Section 5) is meant to address may no longer be concentrated in the jurisdictions singled out for preclearance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority 8-1 opinion [25]. "The statute's coverage formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions."

-----------

I don't claim that discrimination no longer exists. I claim that such does not happen with enough frequency in those areas covered to warrant extra judicial oversight - especially when you have other areas of the country that can be worse and not suffer under the same rules.

In those areas not covered, a remedy exists for the plantiff to file suit. I am simply stating that such should be the standard for the entire country.

More:

Many saw in the Court's 2009 decision an underlying message to Congress to act to amend the Voting Rights Act. Of course, that didn't happen.

Also, some wonder about a current coverage formula that doesn't include states like Ohio and the whole of Florida, places which came under fire this year for scaling back [29] on early voting.

"If you don't have Ohio and Florida, it might suggest that the coverage formula is a little out of whack," said Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at UC Irvine School of Law. "The way the Supreme Court federalism cases stack up, and the way the conservative justices view these cases, I'm predicting the Court will strike it down."

Gerken, the Yale Law professor, also speculates [30] on why the Court's four liberal justices joined the 8-1 opinion in 2009 that so clearly expressed doubts about the law's constitutionality.

"Maybe they did it because they wanted Congress to do something, or maybe it was a deal to postpone the demise of the Voting Rights Act," she said. "If it was a deal, it seems likely the deal will not last beyond that one case."

---------

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ModernViking Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863350 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/4/2013 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What IS wrong is continuing to pretend that one's party is the champion for all non-white...........yet one's party is mainly responsible for slaery being perpetuated even after emancipation.


I'd be happy if we could just get beyond even having to make a distinction.

OTOH, discrimination based on undesirable personality traits seems so much more appropriate these days. But unfortunately with so much contention we all come off like jerks sometimes. And chanting "Positive Outlook Power" just sounds way too "Up With People" for me to take it seriously.




From Detroit to Oakland, let's hope they continue to cost you people more and more and more.

JediG


"You people" - someone will bite on that :)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JediGALT Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1863407 of 1977291
Subject: Re: Justice Scalia -- 'White and Proud' Date: 3/4/2013 3:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
mv....

The American left will NEVER let us get beyond it.

If we did, then certain non-white people who are OWNED by democrats would start *gasp* seeing themselves as full citizens and that would be a major chink in the Leftist slave operations.

And yes, they ALWAYS bite on the "you people" here. They can't stand it. :) Also gives them an escape from having to deal with the topics I bring up that are backed by links.

JediG

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (45) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement