Antonin Scalia, Man of The (Rich, White) People

Scalia v. Justice
Protecting The Vote For White People and Corporations

The Supreme Court

March 2, 2013

I apologize for using the words justice and Antonin Scalia on the same page. It is beyond oxymoronic. The self-outed Tea Party Justice not to be confused with the eternally silent (while sitting on the bench at least) husband of outspoken, Tea addled Ginny Thomas, famous drunk-dialer of her husband's sexual harassment victim Anita Hill. Scalia, a clearly politically-biased judge, who hides behind his besotted insistence that he and he alone understands the minds of our Founding Fathers, still believes himself an originalist even after breaking the law by appointing our 43^rd president against the clear wishes of the American electorate. 

Scalia, the man who brought you “president” George W. Bush last year took it upon himself to regale the Supreme Court, government attorneys and the American public with Tea Party truthiness in his blatant attempt to derail the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act - now known as Obamacare. During oral arguments Scalia sounded more like Bill O’Reilly than a Supreme Court justice.  He compared health care to broccoli, bemoaning the possibility that the federal government might force people to buy broccoli after making medical insurance mandatory. How many people have gone bankrupt for wont of broccoli?

 

Because flipping the bird is too common

Scalia and his fellow travelers next reversed a century of legal precedent in destroying what semblance of democracy of, by and for the people remains with the vastly unpopular Citizens’ United decision. This outrageous decision all but assures that American politicians will be wholly owned by large corporations and perhaps foreign interests who can afford to influence elections at every level under the loving protection of this Supreme Court derision. These are not justices. They are political operatives albeit unelected ones.

This yutz, who calls himself an originalist, implying he is able to interpret the original intent of the Founders with Pope-like infallibility (something of which the Founders themselves were wholly incapable), thinks the 1965 Voting Rights Act is passé, while simultaneously asserting that the Second Amendment, written in 1791, applies perfectly well to assault weapons, grenade launchers and 100-round magazines for the mentally ill and suspected terrorists, and not just the original intent, which was musket-baring militias. Maybe Scalia's originalism is harkening back to the days of the Founders, who unfortunately couldn't even afford blacks personhood, let alone suffrage. Maybe Scalia should take a cue from the real Pope and begin his retirement now.

Republican'ts over the years have decried activist judges, which apparently means anyone to the left of Robert Bork. The current Court has done more legislating from the bench than should be possible in a democracy where the People are supposed to have the last say.

Now the esteemed court is taking a look at The Voting Rights Act, which in part ensures that Alaska, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia – all states with histories of...let’s call it discrimination – cannot suddenly decide to change their voting laws. Since the act passed in 1965 Congress has, by larger and larger margins, voted to extend it. Congress worked overtime to decide whether or not to extend it in 2006. They decided it was still necessary, voting overwhelmingly to extend it. Even the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act four times over forty years. But now Scalia, Roberts and Uncle Thomas are going to just spit on precedent and voting equality?

Scalia, during oral arguments on extending the Voting Rights Act this week growled, “This is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose votes if they do not re-enact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?” Not content that he had raised his racist bona fides high enough he continued, “This last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.” So this pompous, perpetual putz thinks that voting is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement?" Go fuck yourself figure.

Add to this Chimp Chief Justice John Roberts who, starting in his late 20s as one of Ronald Reagan’s sadistic minions, spent much of his legal career trying to destroy the Voting Rights Act. Roberts chose to fabricate statistics to support his disgraceful position during his oral arguments last week. I wonder if these guys have pointy hoods to go with their "judicial" robes.

Clarence Thomas...just watching. As always.

I. Mangrey reporting.

Thanks for listening. Righteous indignation invited.