The Internets were busy today...
Impatient Nation Demands Supreme Court Just Get To The Gay Stuff
In oral arguments re: gay marriage, Scalia made a big deal out of the
silliness of saying something became unconstitutional over time.
Apparently this view does not extend to the Voting Rights Act.
-@jtlevy
You don't have to rebrand if you get to decide who votes.
-@KagroX
I'm just a white guy in a robe asking you to understand that racism as
it existed in 1965 is basically over.
-@LOLGOP
from Ruther Bader Ginsburg's dissent on the Voting Rights Act:
Demand for a record of violations equivalent to the one earlier made would expose Congress to a Catch-22. If the statute was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime.
Just as buildings in California have a greater need to be earthquake proofed, places where there is greater racial polarization in voting have a greater need for prophylactic measures to prevent purposeful race discrimination.
The full dissent is here.
Conservatives: We can't use voting data from 1965 but let's stick to a
definition of marriage from 1620.
-@LOLGOP
I'm old enough to remember with Republicans thought judicial overreach
was a bad thing.
-Ana Marie Cox
Categories: Miscellany
Subscribe
[Home]
[Commentwear]
[E-Mail KGB]
Older entries, Archives and Categories Top of page
