Then she explained with a little mindreading of her own as to what the mindreading justice was up to with his choice of words:
-- 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?
"But I think he does know how that sounds, and that's the neat thing about being there in person because you can see oh, actually, he's a troll. He's saying this for effect". He knows it's offensive and he knows he's going to get a gasp from the courtroom which he got. And he loves it". He's that kind of guy."
Is he that kind of guy? Is he a troll?
It's possible he goes out of his way to offend, given Scalia's behavior over the years. But if he's just "saying this for effect," he'd be likely to end up voting to uphold the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. Anything's possible.
But if he's not "saying this for effect," if he's saying things because [8]he means them[8], then it's more likely that he'll vote to hold that the 1965 law has outlived its constitutional expiration date. That, too, would be consistent with his behavior over the years as something of a [9]racist royalist[9] whose divination of the Constitution's original meaning might well include the realities that non-whites were mostly [10]slaves and voters[10] were all white male property-owners.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
