Posted on 03/03/2013 3:33:14 PM PST by Nachum
Liberals have accused Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia of being the court's resident bully, but when two liberal female Suprem Court Justices--Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--this week tried to browbeat Scalia and lawyers arguing against the Voting Rights Act's Section 5 pre-clearance requirement, the mainstream media hailed their efforts.
In oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder on Wednesday, Scalia made the point that members of Congress have no reason whatsoever to vote against the extension of the Voting Rights Act and that he was "fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless--unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution."
"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement," Scalia said
Scalia's point was that once a bill has the effect of ensuring that minority candidates get elected from "minority" districts, it is almost impossible, in the political system, to vote against extending the act.
"Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes," Scalia said. "I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act."
Scalia said there were "certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now" and even the Virginia Senators "have no interest in voting against this" because they would lose votes "if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act."
"Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act," Scalia said. "Who is going to vote against that in the future?"
Sotomayor was not having any of it.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I have heard this; but by her actions now she is unfit to serve.
Is Kagan a real lawyer?
Kagan is as much a lawyer as Obama is.
SOS my way, or the highway Leftists.
I agree. Were I a Senator, I would have voted for Sotomayor and against Kagan. Comparing the two as the same is not intellectually fair. Sotomayer, has been a well respected judge for some time. Certainly, her politics are wrong, but she earned her reputation as a fair judge. Each party is going to nominate like-minded people to judicial positions, and a Democrat is rarely going to put someone we agree with on the court. Much like Ginsburg (who is a top notch intellect), Sotomeyer is a reasonable pick. Kagan was a political entity and nothing more and has no business on the court.
I do agree with others Sotomayer is performing poorly in this current role. She was likely awarded to the position with some guidelines by this administration. That said, she had a resume worthy of the court.
When appointed, Sotomayor was the most reversed single judge on the Appeals Circuit.
Hardly "a resume worthy of the court".
Unless we presume that "the wise Latina" does, indeed, know better.
You would vote for that leftist bitch for USSC? Why are you on FR?
Same "wise Latina."
SCOTUS did the unthinkable and overruled this "affirmative action" decision and recognized that even Caucasian firefighters have rights, even in New Haven. What am I missing? Or am I right?
I recalled that case, in partricular. The damning thing was, she failed to cite any precedents for her decision; it was merely a matter of "her opinion".
As I recollect, the same criticism was made of several of her other reversed decisions.
Then, after Obozo won the primary by thus disposing of Hull and attacking him as a wife beater, Obozo drew an apparently fine young man named Jack Ryan as a GOP opponent. Ryan, as you note, had been married to and divorced from Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine). Their divorce records had also been sealed. IIRC, the Chicago Tribune (former employer of Robert Axelrod) got a California court to unseal those records which included the claim that Jack Ryan wanted Jeri Ryan to join him in performing sexual acts in front of an audience at a private sex club for exhibitionists at Harrison, New York. Assuming that charge was in some sense true, she declined the offer if any. Her father publicly vouched for Jack Ryan's character in response to those charges but again to no avail.
Jack Ryan would have otherwise been a worthy successor to retiring Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Ryan spent a lot of HIS OWN money to win the primary. His self-made fortune was probably short of your claim (namely about $40 million IIRC). He had graduated Dartmouth and been quite successful in investment banking. He had then volunteered to teach ghetto students in the Chicago public school system so that the talented among them might learn from his successful career. He was turned down because he had not appeased the public edumakashun gods and the National Edumakashun Collective or Association by obtaining that ohhhhh soooooo necessary and useful degree in edumakshun. So he went to a Franciscan Catholic high school on the South Side of Chicago (the war zone) instead and, by all reports, did a fine job there at that largely African American school.
The foregoing which led to the election of Obozo to the Senate is "the Chicago Way" as practiced by Obozo, Axelrod, Jarrett and their, ummmm, comrades.
Ultimate GOP nominee Alan Keyes would certainly have been a far better senator than Obozo. But that's easy. Charles Manson might well have made a better senator than Obozo.
AND, of course, now that he is dead, Abraham Lincoln is probably a reliable Demonrat voter in Chicago. He is but a shade over 200 years old and Demonrat voting registrations are forever in Chicago. Whoever is too busy or dead to vote in person can be voted by the Machine. That Machine is very into servicing the graveyard vote.
Illinois: where our governors make our license plates with their very own hands!
I practiced law for several decades in the Northeast. We really expected a LOT more from our judges, even the political hacks, than their personal prejudices. Usually a decision starts with the judge's renditions of factual findings, then citations to the decisions in similar matters by courts which had ruled on the legal matters in contention, and then the ruling.
For short: Facts, reasoning, conclusion. She skipped the reasoning part and went straight to the conclusion. She is an embarrassment and, for other reasons, Elena Kagan is worse.
Some of us could see it coming. But many still refuse to recognize what's going on. Worse, many don't seem to even care.
These are difficult times and the America we love is hanging by a thread. She is worth our prayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.