Rachel Maddow - SCOTUS conservatives unmoved by broad support for Voting Rights Act

[Galraedia]

[socialindependocrat]

1. It's not their job to second-guess congress.

When congress has an almost unanimous vote for something
the SCOTUS needs to back off. Even if the SCOTUS has testimony
and documented proof for what they are suggesting, it still needs
to go back to congress to be decided upon.

What Scalia is suggesting is just a high-jacking of the political system
based on a supposition.

Someone needs to give that man a sanity test and the others that are
supporting him need to be tested, also.

[King_Klonopin]

7. I was also appalled by the presumptuousness of Scalia's remarks,

that he was somehow omniscient regarding the thoughts,
intentions and feelings of members of Congress. It reveals how
arrogant and grandiose he is. Everything he said was pure BS.

By his logic, any law that Congress has passed may be second-
guessed by this gasbag. Unanimous passage doesn't even hold
any sway with him. As he sees it, the actual voting record of
Congress is less important than the clairvoyance of a deluded
SC Justice.
When are "intuition" and supposition a substitute for a legal
argument? The role of the SCOTUS is to ensure that laws adhere
to the Constitution -- not to be self-proclaimed arbiters of the
supposed intent of members of Congress. Nor is it to speak for them.

If this law is struck down, it will only increase the the number of
cases the DoJ will have to try ex post facto. The law makes sure
that discriminatory state laws don't infringe upon the rights of a
minority group BEFORE they have a chance to be ratified AND --
more importantly -- before bogus laws have a chance to effect
the outcome of an election. BUT, we all know, effecting the outcome
of elections is what this debate is really about.

The "Racial Entitlement" remark is revolting (intentionally) and is
a window into the dog turd soul of this jackhole. Minorities (black
and brown people) just want "entitlements" (special privileges,
not equality and justice) which is discriminatory to the whim of white
folks because the "race problem" no longer exists.
Scalia is not fit to serve as a SC Justice, but this is what happens
when party ideology is considered before the sanctity of interpreting
the Constitution -- we get hacks in black robes. The Activist Judge
which conservatives hate sooooo much.

Scalia will always tailor some ridiculous argument in order to defend
his prejudicial, partisan beliefs and ideology.

[socialindependocrat]

9. Nicely put - and two important points you made....

"makes sure that discriminatory state laws don't infringe upon the rights of a
minority group BEFORE they have a chance to be ratified"

It bothers me that laws can be enacted which impose upon the rights of others which
forces the "others" to get lawyers to take the issue to court in order to get it altered
or revoked. - example: this law against recognizing gay marriage in CA.

Second:

"this is what happens when party ideology is considered before the sanctity of interpreting
the Constitution "

Why is it that 8 other judges can't make Scalia see the error of his logic and why isn't there a way
to get an idiot removed from the bench when they're obviously affected by a tertiary brain infection!
I have written to my congressmen that the SCOTUS is obviously voting along party lines rather than
abiding by the law of the land. Scalia has gone way over the line with this one! (Congress is obviously too afraid to vote otherwise on this issue - so I should do them a favor and change an almost unanimous vote!)

[socialindependocrat]

2. They need to keep the law and expand it....

Expand it to PA, WI, OH and all the states that tried to suppress the vote last election.

This really should be a dead issue!

[Jamaal510]

3. What I still find amazing is how

in all likelihood, Clarence will vote against it. I just really don't get that guy at all...

[oldhippydude]

4. you mean "Uncle Thomas"?.....n/t

[socialindependocrat]

5. Does it seem that some of these justices are a little eccentric?

Scalia thinks he can change congressional laws

and

Thomas has social anxiety disorder and can't speak in front of large groups

[Jamaal510]

6. "Thomas has social anxiety disorder and can't speak in front of large groups"

I didn't know that about him. I'll never look at "Uncle Thomas" the same way again.

[fasttense]

8. The political system is so dysfunctional

Since when are a group of 9 unelected kings allowed to make law? Since when do judges decide laws NOT on constitutional bases, NOT on legal argument and precedent but on how 9 unelected people FEEL about it?

What a useless exercise in judicial review this is.

The whole system is corrupted and rotten to the core.

[socialindependocrat]

10. I wonder if they realize how insane they sound? n/t