2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers

Posted by: KateSorensen

2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/01/13 07:37 PM


Trouble-making women! wink This is so good I stole it from Dana Milbank -- ethel

Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles
By Dana Milbank,

For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down.

As it happens, the two manning up to take on Nino the Terrible are women: the court’s newest members, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The acerbic Scalia, the court’s longest-serving justice, got his latest comeuppance Wednesday morning, as he tried to make the absurd argument that Congress’s renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by votes of 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House did not mean that Congress actually supported the act. Scalia, assuming powers of clairvoyance, argued that the lawmakers were secretly afraid to vote against this “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

Kagan wasn’t about to let him get away with that. In a breach of decorum, she interrupted his questioning of counsel to argue with him directly. “Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia,” she said. “It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.”

Scalia replied to Kagan, “Or decided that perhaps they’d better not vote against it, that there’s nothing, that there’s no — none of their interests in voting against it.”

Justice Stephen Breyer defused the tension. “I don’t know what they’re thinking exactly,” he said, changing the subject.

The styles of the two Obama appointees are different. Sotomayor is blunt and caustic, repeatedly interrupting. In an opinion this week, she harshly criticized a Texas prosecutor for a racist line of questioning. She has been on the interview circuit publicizing her memoir.

Kagan is choosier about when to interject herself, but she’s sardonic and sharp-witted. (“Well, that’s a big, new power that you are giving us,” she said, mockingly, when a lawyer tried to argue that the justices should overrule Congress’s discrimination findings.)

Both are more forceful than the Clinton appointees, the amiable Breyer and the frail Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two new justices are sending a message to the court’s conservative majority: You may have the votes, but you’re going to have a fight.

Wednesday’s voting rights case was typical. Surprisingly, the five conservative justices seemed willing to strike down a landmark civil rights law (the provision that gives extra scrutiny to states with past discrimination) that was renewed with near-unanimous votes in Congress. Conservative jurists usually claim deference to the elected branches, but in this case they look an awful lot like activist judges legislating from the bench.

Sotomayor allowed the lawyer for the Alabama county seeking to overturn the law to get just four sentences into his argument before interrupting him. “Assuming I accept your premise — and there’s some question about that — that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” she charged. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”

Moments later, Kagan pointed out that “Alabama has no black statewide elected officials” and has one of the worst records of voting rights violations.

Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito tried to assist the Alabama county’s lawyer by offering some friendly hypotheticals, but Sotomayor wasn’t interested in hearing that. “The problem with those hypotheticals is obvious,” she said, because “it’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”

Sotomayor continued questioning as if she were the only jurist in the room. “Discrimination is discrimination,” she informed him, “and what Congress said is it continues.”

At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy tried to quiet her. “I would like to hear the answer to the question,” he said. The lawyer got out a few more sentences — and then Kagan broke in.

Sotomayor continued to pipe up, even when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was defending the Voting Rights Act — at one point breaking in as Alito was attempting to speak. Chief Justice John Roberts overruled her. “Justice Alito,” he directed.

Scalia was not about to surrender his title of worst-behaved justice. He mocked the civil rights law as he questioned the government lawyer. “Even the name of it is wonderful,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act: Who is going to vote against that?” (Verrilli cautioned him not to ignore actual votes of Congress in favor of “motive analysis.”)

But Scalia’s mouth was no longer the loudest in the room. When the Alabama county’s lawyer returned for his rebuttal, he managed to utter only five words — “Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice” — before Sotomayor broke in.
Posted by: steveg

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/01/13 07:54 PM

For all their chutzpah and determination, I love those ladies hugely. But I am, frankly, really worried a/b this debate not ending well. Roberts and especially Scalia would rather legislate than adjudicate. And the conservatives on the SCOTUS hold the majority. I'm not even sure Kennedy will lend balance this time around. frown
Posted by: KateSorensen

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/01/13 09:52 PM

Do you think Obama will have one more chance to nominate someone to the SCOTUS bench?

Posted by: steveg

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/01/13 10:11 PM

Only if one of them retires, or, you know...
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 12:30 AM

I'd urge expansion of the law beyond the southern states. We need something like it here in PA, where the legislature has made it more difficult to register, and then more difficult to vote, and now is considering apportioning presidential votes on the basis of gerrymandered districts. All of it, but all of it is geared to making the two major cities, with the largest percentage of the state's population, irrelevant. PA is that way, bicoastal, with Philly in the east and Pittsburgh in the west, and redneckland in between--or as some of my students say, it's really Pennsyltucky. Of course Kentucky is fully -tucky, with McConnell and Paul. We've got Toomey in that camp, and then we've got Casey, who's nice but so retiring that he might as well not be there.
Posted by: steveg

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 01:54 AM

Frankly, it should apply nationally. No exceptions.
Posted by: DLC

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 03:04 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
. Roberts and especially Scalia would rather legislate than adjudicate. frown

I thought they just would rather ejaculate !! blush

Posted by: steveg

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 11:27 AM

Ew... sick
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 03:56 PM

Rachel Maddow was on The Daily Show a couple of nights ago, and according to her what Scalia likes to do is neither legislate nor adjudicate nor [gulp] ejaculate, but just to needle. He's the sock puppet in the room, except that his sock is himself.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 04:12 PM

I watched her speak about Scalia and if indeed he is doing what she says, the man is not fit to be a scj. That behaviour is infantile and certainly not becoming the highest court in the land.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/02/13 07:53 PM

Conservative jurists usually claim deference to the elected branches, but in this case they look an awful lot like activist judges legislating from the bench.

Ah, but they're only "activist judges" if they are liberal judges, right?
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/03/13 11:28 AM

I think Scalia is a bias person who does not like any type of minority at all.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 2 Supreme Court Rabel-Rousers - 03/03/13 05:25 PM

I don't think that Scalia is biased. I think Scalia believes that the Constitution guarantees an equal playing field, but not an equal place at the starting line. He also seems unwilling or unable to recognize that it's easy to win the hundred yard dash if you start the race at the 95th yard. The sock puppetry side of him aside, I think that's what defines his jurisprudence--and frankly, I think the sock puppet aspect gets in the way (although, to be fair, Scalia does write well-argued decisions). There are cogent arguments to be made for the idea of the Constitution that he has. I don't agree with them, but the perspective is certainly arguable.