If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Civil right leaders just a mite ticked off at Supreme Court Justice Scalia's suggestion during oral arguments yesterday that being able to vote was a "racial entitlement" program   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 189
    More: Asinine, Scalia, supreme court justices, supreme courts, civil rights, entitlements, Shelby County, Voting Rights Act  
•       •       •

2898 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2013 at 4:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 03:32:45 PM
Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?
 
2013-02-28 03:33:22 PM
The really offensive part is that Scalia made Clarence Thomas dance next to him while he announced it.
 
2013-02-28 03:39:01 PM

DamnYankees: Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?


It's correct.

Definition of MITE
1: a small coin or sum of money
2a : a very little
 
2013-02-28 03:42:20 PM

DamnYankees: Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?


This is the correct usage.  Might would be incorrect.
 
2013-02-28 03:43:02 PM
www.primagames.com
 
2013-02-28 03:45:10 PM

DamnYankees: Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?


Well, a mite is a little insect that feasts on flesh and transmits disease. How accurately does that description fit Scalia?
 
2013-02-28 03:45:44 PM
I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.
 
2013-02-28 03:50:13 PM

wildcardjack: I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.


Actually, my interpretation is exactly that.  The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional.  If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.
 
2013-02-28 03:53:39 PM
Yes, you'd be ticked off to if you were doing something involving Scalia and oral.
 
2013-02-28 03:54:47 PM

wildcardjack: I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.


Back in the Dred Scott decision, the court got so overzealous in stripping rights for blacks that they went beyond the scope of what the case before them was actually about. If Scalia's making comments like this, no right is safe.
 
2013-02-28 03:55:25 PM

wildcardjack: I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.


They very well may rule that the law is constitutional as written, but that some aspects of its application are unconstitutional at present, which means Congress or the Justice Department would have to remedy that.  Such as the remedy you propose.
 
2013-02-28 03:58:09 PM

DamnYankees: Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?


Well technically the correct grammatical useage is "Jes' a mite"  but as subby isn't likely from the south, bless his heart, we'll give a pass for tryin'
 
2013-02-28 03:58:59 PM

BunkoSquad: The really offensive part is that Scalia made Clarence Thomas dance next to him while he announced it.


It was the whole "I'm going to throw pennies at him while he dances" that got to me.
 
2013-02-28 04:03:10 PM

wildcardjack: I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.


Supreme court can't alter the statutory text like that, but I will almost gaurantee that if they strike the law down a replacement law containing EXACTLY that provision will go up in a heartbeat and Reid and Obama will triple dog-DARE the GOP to filibuster it.  and if that happens it will be a VERY good thing because as Ohio and Wisconsin showed this year, Minority voter supression is no long a Southern thing but a "anywhere there is a GOP majority" thing these days
 
2013-02-28 04:06:17 PM

GAT_00: Actually, my interpretation is exactly that. The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional. If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.


Exactly what I said this morning.
 
2013-02-28 04:06:23 PM

Gosling: DamnYankees: Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?

Well, a mite is a little insect that feasts on flesh and transmits disease. How accurately does that description fit Scalia?


He only eats minorities?
 
2013-02-28 04:08:08 PM

Magorn: wildcardjack: I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.

Supreme court can't alter the statutory text like that, but I will almost gaurantee that if they strike the law down a replacement law containing EXACTLY that provision will go up in a heartbeat and Reid and Obama will triple dog-DARE the GOP to filibuster it.  and if that happens it will be a VERY good thing because as Ohio and Wisconsin showed this year, Minority voter supression is no long a Southern thing but a "anywhere there is a GOP majority" thing these days


Regardless, doesn't it feel like we're transitioning to some kind of bizarro world?
 
2013-02-28 04:09:09 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Yes, you'd be ticked off to if you were doing something involving Scalia and oral.


well...my lunch is tasting awesome the 2nd time around
 
2013-02-28 04:09:12 PM

Magorn: Supreme court can't alter the statutory text like that, but I will almost gaurantee that if they strike the law down a replacement law containing EXACTLY that provision will go up in a heartbeat and Reid and Obama will triple dog-DARE the GOP to filibuster it. and if that happens it will be a VERY good thing because as Ohio and Wisconsin showed this year, Minority voter supression is no long a Southern thing but a "anywhere there is a GOP majority" thing these days


Thus leading to an expansion of Federal power and oversight over the election process. That would indeed be interesting.
 
2013-02-28 04:10:12 PM
Scalia is a massive judicial trainwreck.  Not just for his ultra-conservative views, but he's not even consistent.  And he's so smug, I think he gets off on being a massive dick to people through his tortured constitutional interpretation.
 
2013-02-28 04:11:03 PM
Ha, minorities acting like their vote counts as much as the votes of us whities. What entitlement they exhibit! Who do they think they are? I mean, what's the point of being white if we don't get special privileges?
 
2013-02-28 04:11:18 PM

GAT_00: The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional.


Like Scalia gives a fark about that.
 
2013-02-28 04:11:21 PM
GoldSpider: GAT_00: Actually, my interpretation is exactly that. The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional. If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.

Exactly what I said this morning.

fark that. If it doesn't extend to Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Island and Puerto Rico, biatches will be wack

/don't even mention Florida...
 
2013-02-28 04:11:27 PM
And here I was thinking that Justice Scalia was being sincere when he said that he favored judicial restraint and respect for policy decisions made by Congress.

Man, do I have egg on my face.
 
2013-02-28 04:11:33 PM

Gosling: DamnYankees: Is that proper use of "mite" in this context? Or should it be "might"?

Well, a mite is a little insect that feasts on flesh and transmits disease. How accurately does that description fit Scalia?


No one ever called Scalia "little."
 
2013-02-28 04:11:34 PM

wildcardjack: I've been thinking about this case. The obvious solution isn't to dump the whole thing, but to expand the districting review to all the states.

If that's the way things come down then I'll hurt myself laughing.


I would like to see that too. I think election laws need to be made more consistent state by state so that states are not gaming the system.

I think if we want to get rid of the electoral collage we must have standard voting laws across the nation.
 
2013-02-28 04:11:49 PM

Trivia Jockey: Scalia is a massive judicial trainwreck.  Not just for his ultra-conservative views, but he's not even consistent.  And he's so smug, I think he gets off on being a massive dick to people through his tortured constitutional interpretation.


What's his Fark handle?
 
2013-02-28 04:12:27 PM
Haven't you heard?  We've got a black president now, so racism is totally over in the US and we don't need laws like this anymore.
 
2013-02-28 04:13:35 PM
Also the arguing against it said something like "It takes away or sovereignty as a state". Sorry dude your state is part of the USA. It's not a sovereign entity. I can't believe he said something like that it people just accept it.
 
2013-02-28 04:13:38 PM
Oh, it's about the part that names specific areas by name and mandates additional spending to keep those particular areas in check?  Yeah, that doesn't really sound necessary anymore to me.

Do random spot checks all over the country or something
 
2013-02-28 04:14:02 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Yes, you'd be ticked off, too, if you were doing something involving Scalia and oral.


Clarence Thomas doesn't seem to mind.
 
2013-02-28 04:14:27 PM

BunkoSquad: The really offensive part is that Scalia made Clarence Thomas dance next to him while he announced it.


The really offensive part is that Thomas volunteered to do it.
 
2013-02-28 04:14:45 PM
I don't think Scalia gives a damn what a bunch of 'off color' people think.
 
2013-02-28 04:15:12 PM

BunkoSquad: The really offensive part is that Scalia made Clarence Thomas dance next to him while he announced it.


In Whiteface no less.
 
2013-02-28 04:15:21 PM

Trivia Jockey: Scalia is a massive judicial trainwreck.  Not just for his ultra-conservative views, but he's not even consistent.  And he's so smug, I think he gets off on being a massive dick to people through his tortured constitutional interpretation.


He is. If he had a consistent stable conservative outlook that would be one thing but basically he goes "How can I come up with a reasoning to support my political views?"
 
2013-02-28 04:15:27 PM

GoldSpider: GAT_00: Actually, my interpretation is exactly that. The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional. If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.

Exactly what I said this morning.


I said it yesterday
 
2013-02-28 04:15:41 PM

Trivia Jockey: Scalia is a massive judicial trainwreck.  Not just for his ultra-conservative views, but he's not even consistent.  And he's so smug, I think he gets off on being a massive dick to people through his tortured constitutional interpretation.



Richard Posner has written some excellent articles pointing out the incredible insincerity of Scalia's "strict constructionist" philosophy.  If you look at Scalia's actual decisions, he just invokes "strict construction" or textualism when it's convenient, but then completely abandons it when it suits his desired outcome.

Yet Scalia has spent a lot of ink writing about how strict constrution/textualism is the only coherent judicial philosophy out there, and all other methods of interpretation boil down to judicial activism.

I submit that if you want to see an perfect example of an activist judge, look no further than Justice Scalia.
 
2013-02-28 04:16:03 PM
"Racial Entitlements" to become the new Washington catchphrase in 3, 2, ...
 
2013-02-28 04:16:04 PM
Usually Yahoo News comments suck like a black hole stuffed full of Hoover vacuum cleaners,
but this was a gem:



John • 1 hr 44 mins ago

How about making a law that gives Americans the absolute right to vote with no special conditions except being an American citizen. Then enforce the law even if makes some hillbilly's mad. The government folks seems to like to use the term entitlements.

My Social Security is called an entitlement even though I paid into it for almost 50 years.

Now my Right To Vote is called an entitlement.

I did not fight a war and kill my fellow man so some damn arrogant b*stards can toss around the word entitlement.

I find it amazing how much sh*t we take from people in this country when we should be kicking them where the sun don't shine instead of paying them for their abuse. We have some nerve giving other countries advice. Everyone should be outraged not just some of us.
 
2013-02-28 04:16:53 PM
Soon they'll let the Black Italians vote.
 
2013-02-28 04:17:03 PM
It's only strict when it says what we want it to say.
It's only activist when they do what we don't want them to do.
 
2013-02-28 04:17:55 PM

Hobodeluxe: GoldSpider: GAT_00: Actually, my interpretation is exactly that. The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional. If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.

Exactly what I said this morning.

I said it yesterday


Curses!
 
2013-02-28 04:18:30 PM

Corvus: Trivia Jockey: Scalia is a massive judicial trainwreck.  Not just for his ultra-conservative views, but he's not even consistent.  And he's so smug, I think he gets off on being a massive dick to people through his tortured constitutional interpretation.

He is. If he had a consistent stable conservative outlook that would be one thing but basically he goes "How can I come up with a reasoning to support my political views?"


And Scalia is pretty open about it too - he starts with how he wants things to fit into his ideology, then works backwards through the law until he finds some way to justify his decisions.  it's all just shallow justification tho, and he barely bothers to hide it from anyone.  the contempt bit of his attitude comes through loud and clear tho.

I dunno.  maybe he wasn't beaten enough as a child?  or maybe he was beaten too much?  difficult to say with people like him.
 
2013-02-28 04:19:08 PM
Entitlement... like how we all are entitled to the right to the right to vote because of our rights, as specifically recognized in the Constitution?

Despite the right-wing propaganda to try twist the meaning of the word into meaning some sort of hand-out or undeserved gift, "Entitlement" is exactly correct.
 
2013-02-28 04:19:32 PM

Hobodeluxe: GoldSpider: GAT_00: Actually, my interpretation is exactly that. The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional. If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.

Exactly what I said this morning.

I said it yesterday


I said it last week.
 
2013-02-28 04:19:45 PM
I feel like all Scalia does in his spare time is read articles from free republic and foxnation, and then uses those articles for the reasoning behind his decisions on the bench.
 
2013-02-28 04:19:49 PM
Justice Ruth Ginsburg (liberal) is 79
Justice Stephen G. Breyer (liberal) is 74
Justice Antonin Scalia (conservative) is 76
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (swing) is 76


Before 2016 at least two of these Justices will retire. Justice Ginsburg is definitely gone soon, and while Justice Scalia says he is going to hold out for a Republican President, I don't think his body can do it. Considering how divided the court is now, any openings would have serious consequences in the United States.
 
2013-02-28 04:20:02 PM

Corvus: I would like to see that too. I think election laws need to be made more consistent state by state so that states are not gaming the system.


If you can do that, you can end gerrymandering.  Wish ya luck with that!

Corvus: I think if we want to get rid of the electoral collage we must have standard voting laws across the nation.


Straight popular vote?
 
2013-02-28 04:20:22 PM

Somacandra: Magorn: Supreme court can't alter the statutory text like that, but I will almost gaurantee that if they strike the law down a replacement law containing EXACTLY that provision will go up in a heartbeat and Reid and Obama will triple dog-DARE the GOP to filibuster it. and if that happens it will be a VERY good thing because as Ohio and Wisconsin showed this year, Minority voter supression is no long a Southern thing but a "anywhere there is a GOP majority" thing these days

Thus leading to an expansion of Federal power and oversight over the election process. That would indeed be interesting.


Yes, indeed, especially when coupled with Eric Holder's comments on voter registration (that STATES should be responsible for having accurate rolls of all thier citizens who are eligible to vote and it shouldn't be the responsibility of each eligible citizen to separately register -an idea with considerable merit from a legal standpoint, if a potentially explosive one politically.

I've been more than a little shocked at how openly and brazenly the GOP (by and large) has embraced manipulation of the election machinery (from supressing minority voter turnout to re-jiggered how electoral votes are allocated) as their new poltical strategy.  I'd have thought htat appearing to mess with fair elections was a poltical third rail, but apparently not anymore.

I think the time may be ripe for 28th Amendment that A) either abolishes the electoral college altogether or requires a mandatory method for allocating electors (and maybe fixes the  goss imbalance between large and small states when it comes to number of voters per EV)  B) enshrines as a constitutional right, the absolute right of each individual citizen to vote for the president and national represensatives (Congress and Senate) and have theirvotes be the absolute determinant of the winner of those contests (this, suprisingly, is not currently the case according to the SCOTUS) C) gives COngress the ability to enforce such rights by appropriate legislation
 
2013-02-28 04:21:47 PM

Car_Ramrod: Hobodeluxe: GoldSpider: GAT_00: Actually, my interpretation is exactly that. The VRA has long since been upheld as Constitutional. If it is incorrect to apply it only to select states, then it should be applied nationwide.

Exactly what I said this morning.

I said it yesterday

I said it last week.


I carved it on the Rosetta Stone
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report