Scalia the Troll, Logic and The Future

Bigots unhappy, as GOP goes dark

Update: See also Laurence H. Tribe's DOMA, Prop 8, and Justice Scalia’s intemperate dissent.

A reader notes that there was no affirmatively declared right to marry in Justice Kennedy's United States. v. Windsor opinion, just an equal protection affirmation that an animus towards a class of Americans is not permissible.

True, and Justice Kennedy has earned the appellation of what Justice William O. Doulgas (1939–75) used to deride as "spaghetti spine."

Kennedy's opinion should have been much more broad, and sweeping.

But the foundation for a final federal Constitutional challenge has been laid.

The current discriminatory marriage regimes in the states are "too incoherent to survive" in the wake of Windsor, as Rachel Meadow opined on MSNBC.

David Weigel notes Antonin Scalia's dissent in Windsor —just 24 hours after invalidating the crown jewel of civil rights legislation, the democratically adopted Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, et al—in which Scalia writes without irony, "We have no power to decide this case. [Windsor] And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."

Don't look for coherency or consistency from Scalia; he remains little more than an ideological troll.

But Kennedy would embarrass himself to rule in the future that states can utilize a political animus towards gays, and that this is permissible under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Justice Scalia Trolls at Public Forum

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965
 by President Lyndon B. Johnson,
a Democrat, who had earlier signed
the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continued his public comments that appear intended to annoy, rather than enlighten civil rights activists and legal audiences.

The Wall Street Journal reports on Scalia's latest comments, redolent of segregationist-era, southern governors.

Echoing comments he made at oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder (February 2013) challenging the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Scalia called the Act's reauthorizations an "embedded" form of "racial preferment" that Congress and Presidency would vote to maintain unless Scalia and the Court step in.

Preferment is defined by Webster's Dictionary as: An "advancement or promotion in dignity, office, or station."

Scalia, as is his habit, ignores the mountain of evidence that contradicts his la la land.

"Based on 21 hearings, over 90 witnesses, and a fifteen-thousand-page record, in 2006 Congress determined that discrimination against voters of color remains concentrated in covered states, and overwhelmingly renewed Section 5," notes Spencer Overton.

Though many believe that Scalia will vote to overturn the crown jewel of civil rights laws, a rightwing ideologue, Scalia will nevertheless sometimes vote—after making the outlines of arguments not supporting his voiced conclusions—unpredictably.

Don't be surprised if Scalia votes to uphold the Act after having duly offended and shocked civil rights activists, many of whom were killed and beaten after the Movement's direct challenge to the segregation of the American south, where most of jurisdictions covered by the Act are located.

A decision is expected in June.

Scalia the Hack; Neal Nettesheim the Judge

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a hack who needs to resign from the Supreme Court, says E.J. Dionne Jr., though Dionne uses less accurate but more polite language in advocating Scalia's resignation for corruption.

Here in Wisconsin, the land of the know-nothing Wisconsin corporate media, we have Judge Neal Nettesheim convening and overseeing the John Doe investigation into the Scott Walker gang and its veterans' money embezzling beauties.

A desperate, long-time aide to Walker, Tim Russell, keeps making ludicrous motions that must keep the Milwaukee County DA's office in good spirits as its demolishes this Republican vermin.

Judge Nettesheim is not a good target for Republicans as his ethics and impartiality are unassailable.