Skip to main content

View Diary: In off-the-bench spew, Scalia makes clear where he'll come down in ruling on Voters Rights Act (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Robert Parry weighs, in writing.. (6+ / 0-)

    Perverting the Constitution for Power - March 3, 2013

    One almost expected these right-wing justices to resurrect the “Three-Fifths of a Person” clause, which was repealed by the post-Civil War amendments ending slavery and asserting equal protection under the law. Why not? If they’re reaching back to the state “sovereignty” and “independence” in the Articles of Confederation, which was repealed by the Constitution, why not embrace the concept that whites are more of a person than non-whites?

    The Court’s right-wing majority seems determined to do whatever it can to get another Republican president into the White House as soon as possible so their majority will be sustained, much as five Republican partisans installed George W. Bush after Election 2000, although he lost the popular vote and would have lost Florida if the Court had allowed all legally cast ballots to be counted.

    However, as Bush’s fate and the Court’s Republican majority hung in the balance, five GOP partisans – including current Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Clarence Thomas – suddenly fell in love with the post-Civil War’s Fourteenth Amendment and its “equal-protection-under-the-law” principle. With Kennedy writing the majority opinion, they somehow twisted it into an excuse for not counting the votes of blacks and poor people.

    That way a Republican was put into the White House and could fill Court vacancies, which Bush did in selecting John Roberts and Samuel Alito to replace William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor.

    Now, by overturning much if not all of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority could clear the way for more suppression of non-white votes and thus increase the chances that a Republican president will be in place to ensure that the right-wing majority doesn’t slide into the minority.
     - emphasis added

    Doesn't look as though Kennedy can be counted on to do the right thing
    Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is widely regarded as the “reasonable centrist” in this group, seems to believe that the Constitution made each state an “independent sovereign.” He used that phrase last Wednesday in oral arguments on whether to strike down the Voting Rights Act and especially Section Five, which requires jurisdictions with histories of racially motivated voter suppression to get federal court permission before changing their voting laws.

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Kennedy expressed concern that this requirement violated the constitutional provision declaring each state, in this case Alabama, to be an “independent sovereign.” However, there is no such language in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Constitution intentionally expunged language about states being “independent” and “sovereign,” which appeared in Article Two of the Articles of Confederation as it governed the United States from 1777 to 1787

    And looks like The rise of Jim Crow
    •  THe author of that article is doing a bit of (0+ / 0-)

      sleight of hand.  "Independent sovereign" doesn't appear in the Constitution, sure, but it IS widely accepted that states do enjoy aspects of sovereignty, like sovereign immunity.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site