Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged Antonin Scalia

131 notes

Utah! You’re fantastic. The AP is reporting same-sex couples have already gotten hitched in Salt Lake City. More on today’s decision here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/federal-judge-strikes-down-utah-same-sex-marriage-ban
One of the best parts about today’s ruling is that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s fire-breathing dissent regarding DOMA in his overturning the ban. Why? Because Scalia breathlessly warned that the SCOTUS decision in the Windsor case would open the floodgates to doing away with state bans. Like Utah’s.
Hey Scalia. You like apples? HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?

Utah! You’re fantastic. The AP is reporting same-sex couples have already gotten hitched in Salt Lake City. More on today’s decision here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/federal-judge-strikes-down-utah-same-sex-marriage-ban

One of the best parts about today’s ruling is that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby cited Justice Antonin Scalia’s fire-breathing dissent regarding DOMA in his overturning the ban. Why? Because Scalia breathlessly warned that the SCOTUS decision in the Windsor case would open the floodgates to doing away with state bans. Like Utah’s.

Hey Scalia. You like apples? HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?

Filed under utah same-sex marriage marriage equality antonin scalia lgbtqia politics

43 notes

There’s a special place in hell for the people who go to an open mic and talk loudly the whole time.

I don’t care if it’s music, comedy, or both — you think they suck, you think your conversation is more important than someone trying to share something with you and the audience, you just HAVE to tell your BFF and the rest of the clique the BIGGEST NEWS EVER — I don’t give a shit.

Take it the fuck outside. Otherwise, you’re rude and I hold you in the same esteem as people who rip farts in elevators and Antonin Scalia. He probably dissents like a dick at open mics too.

Filed under PSA Antonin Scalia drunkblr

121 notes

The only time you’re going to have an opportunity to study a whole area of the law systematically is in law school. You should not waste that opportunity. Take the bread-and-butter courses. Do not take ‘law and women,’ do not take ‘law and poverty,’ do not take ‘law and anything.’

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, advising students during a speaking engagement at the University of Wyoming Law School in October 2012 that they should avoid “frill courses” during their time in school. (Source: Above the Law)

1. This explains a lot about that bitter old bastard

2. Because the law affects nothing else, amirite?

Because if we take “law and anything,” we might try to understand the ways “law” affects the “anything,” then that might change into action based on that understanding, and shit — those not old white men people might start getting all uppity and thinking they deserve things like rights.

Filed under Antonin Scalia Racism University of Wyoming Politics Law school intellectual hack

81 notes

This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress. The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of [the Voting Rights Act of 1965] in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.

And 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.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, discussing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in oral arguments for Shelby County v. Holder, Feb. 27, 2013.

Why does this matter?

As Suevon Lee explains Aug. 30, 2012 for ProPublica: “A single provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been playing a key role on the election front this year. Section 5 has blocked photo voter-ID laws, prohibited reduced early-voting periods in parts of Florida and just Tuesday barred new redistricting maps in Texas. It’s the reason South Carolina is in federal court this week to try to convince a three-judge panel its photo voter-ID law will not disenfranchise minorities. It’s the reason that Texas went to trial on the same issue last month — and on Thursday, lost.

Not surprisingly, then, Section 5 is increasingly the target of attack by those who say it is outdated, discriminatory against Southern states and unconstitutional.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor smacked down the idea that Section 5 was a racial entitlement, and reminded us all that the right to vote is just that — a right, not a racial entitlement, no matter how desperately some jurisdictions and justices may want to reverse that fact.

Filed under Antonin Scalia Race racism politics Voting Rights Act of 1965 Alabama Shelby County Section 5 voting voting is a right discrimination Supreme Court SCOTUS

63 notes

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution… The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact 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?

Justice Antonin Scalia, oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, Feb. 27, 2013.

Maybe Scalia should talk to the members of the GOP who voted against the Violence Against Women Act. That’s got a wonderful name. Who’s going to vote against that?

Oh, wait…

Filed under VAWA Violence Against Women Act politics SCOTUS U.S. Supreme Court Shelby County v. Holder Antonin Scalia just sayin'