Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 6/26/13

The Supreme Court's Constitutional Hypocrisy

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   3 comments
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 80943
Message Ari Berman
Become a Fan
  (3 fans)
Source: The Nation

(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA


In his dissent in the Defense of Marriage Act case today, Justice Scalia wrote: "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

Justice Roberts wrote in his concurrence: "I agree with Justice Scalia that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the courts below... I also agree with Justice Scalia that Congress acted constitutionally in passing the Defense of Marriage Act."

Yet that reasoning didn't stop Justices Roberts and Scalia from striking down the centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act yesterday, a hugely important civil rights law that has been passed by Congress five times with overwhelming bipartisan approval. Why didn't the court defer to Congress on the VRA, which has a far more robust Congressional history/mandate than DOMA? And how did Roberts and Scalia reach such contradictory conclusions in the different cases?

It doesn't seem like the Chief Justice has a very sound grasp of the Constitution when it comes to the VRA. Richard Posner, an esteemed conservative legal theorist at the University of Chicago and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote in Slate that Roberts struck down Section 4 of the VRA for violating the "fundamental principle of equal sovereignty," which, as Posner writes "is a principle of constitutional law of which I had never  heard -- for the excellent reason that...there is no such principle...The opinion rests on air." The extensive record developed by Congress, most recently in 2006, Posner writes, "should have been the end of this case."

David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center made a similar point to Steve Benen of MSNBC's MaddowBlog yesterday:

Click Here to Read Whole Article

 

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Ari Berman Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Ari Berman is a contributing writer for The Nation magazine and an Investigative Journalism Fellow at The Nation Institute. He has written extensively about American politics, foreign policy and the intersection of money and (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein 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
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

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

Eleventh-Hour GOP Voter Suppression Could Swing Ohio

Ohio GOP Admits Early Voting Cutbacks Are Racially Motivated

Separate and Unequal Voting in Arizona and Kansas

North Carolina Passes the Country's Worst Voter Suppression Law

Ohio GOP Resurrects Voter Suppression Efforts

North Carolina Shows Why the Voting Rights Act Is Still Needed

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: