It’s a new era in the John Roberts court, Dana Milbank writes today. While listeners have gotten used to Justice Antonin Scalia’s aggressive questioning and impolite carrying on, new justices are stepping up to the interrupting-while-robed plate. Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are bringing the abrasion as well.
It’s a very popular article with commenters, though almost nobody actually wants to comment on Milbank’s assertion that the impolite side of the bench has tripled. And by “almost nobody” PostScript means MichSeag.
I think it’s about time that the non-reactionary-activists began speaking up! For many, this last election was just as important as the 2010 election for this very reason. In 2010, the winning party got to Gerrymander congressional districts for the next 10 years. In 2012, the winner was going to appoint at least one, and probably two justices to the SCOTUS. Even though Obama won, the balance of power on the SCOTUS will not likely change during his term, as the reactionary-wing is too young. But the appointees that replace Bader-Ginsburg and (likely) Breyer will, hopefully, be as brash, combative and confrontational as the reactionary-wing is.
Everyone else wanted to talk about the confrontational originalist, Scalia, and his comments on the challenge to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that Milbank wrote about. Specifically, Scalia’s argument that the reauthorization of VRA (passed with 98 senators’ support) is evidence that senators feel too guilty to vote how they really feel.
OhMy goes straight to PostScript’s shriveled heart the only way you can. With fun words:
Sounds like Scalia would like to become the Great Poobah. He could make law without the inconvenience of legal precedent or disagreement. Oh yes and he could read the minds of Congress. If their decision happens to be inconvenient he can just say they really didn’t intend the law they passed to mean what it says. How twisted is this reasoning?
JoeT1 picks up that thread:
Fascinating that Scalia, the strict constructionist, thinks that it’s the Supreme Court’s job to throw out not only unconstitutional laws, but laws that Congress can’t help but pass for political reasons. Or that he can disregard the factual findings of the legislature for that reason.
Or, to put it another way, what kind of conservatism has the Supreme Court disregarding the legislatures’ actual votes by divining impure motives for same?
thmas, probably not Justice Clarence Thomas, also wants to interrupt Scalia:
It does seem absurd to title the right to vote as a “racial entitlement.” If Scalia really thinks that racial minorities in the United States wouldn’t be able to exercise the franchise without an “entitlement,” he’s basically conceded the case.
It went on similarly for so many comments that dcostello outright asked for a dissenting opinion:
Asked a while ago for someone to defend Scalia by showing how his comments do not define judicial activism when he has made his original intent his mantra. So far no response. Anyone?
Justice Scalia needs no defense, he has always been terrific.
And now we’ll have three times the terrific with our newest justices.