Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 4 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 4 (11 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   2 comments

General News

Is Scalia a Troll?

By       Message William Boardman     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 6 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

News 2   Supported 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 3/11/13

Author 14586
Become a Fan
  (30 fans)
- Advertisement -

(Article changed on March 11, 2013 at 19:09)

WHY DOES JUSTICE SCALIA HATE THE CONSTITUTION?    ARE VOTING RIGHTS SECURE?    

By William Boardman   Email address removed"> Email address removed  

15TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

[Ratified February 3, 1870]

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

IS VOTING AS AMERICAN AS CHERRY PIE?  

- Advertisement -

Congress's 2006 renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was the subject of 76 minutes of  [1]oral argument[1] before the [2]U.S. Supreme Court[2] in February, although Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, 77, gave the impression that he thought the legislation was really called the Voting Entitlement Act.   

Early in the hearing on a frequently non-compliant Alabama county's appeal of the [3]Voting Rights Act[3], Scalia tried leading Alabama's counsel into agreeing to a specious conclusion by citing the 1965 Senate vote of 79-18 to pass the act, compared to the Senate's 2006 unanimous 98-0 vote to renew the act. 

"It must have been even clearer in 2006 that these States were violating the Constitution," Scalia said.  "Don't you think that's true?" 

"No," said the Alabama counsel, "I think the court has to --"

Associate Justice Elena Kagan, 53, interrupted tongue in cheek, "Well that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia.   It was clear to 98 Senators, including every Senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation." 

- Advertisement -

"Or decided that perhaps they'd better not vote against it," Scalia answered, "that there's nothing, that there's no -- none of their interests in voting against it." 

Justices Avoid Discussing Psychic Powers

"I don't know what they're thinking," said Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, 75, as he changed the subject from Scalia's speculation based, apparently, on retrospective, paranoid mindreading of those voting Senators in 2006.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

- Advertisement -

News 2   Supported 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

Vermonter living in Woodstock: elected to five terms (served 20 years) as side judge (sitting in Superior, Family, and Small Claims Courts); public radio producer, "The Panther Program" -- nationally distributed, three albums (at CD Baby), some (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Perceptions Fight Reality

Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Fukushima Meltdowns: Global Denial At Work

Vermont Asks: "What the Fukushima"?

Military-Industrial Complex Owns Vermont

Accountability in Vermont?