Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who’s going to vote against that?Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia • Expressing his continued disapproval of the Voting Rights Act, which the conservative-leaning judge apparently views as a “racial preferment.” Thankfully, much of the rest of the Supreme Court (and the United States as a whole, we’d wager) doesn’t seem to agree with him. source
I don’t think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons,” he said. “They vote the way they do because they have their own judicial philosophy.Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia • During an interview with Piers Morgan for “Piers Morgan Live” last night, refuting claims that he was feuding with Chief Justice John Roberts. The claims surfaced following the 5-4 upholding of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Scalia, who is currently touring to promote his new book, also took time to defend the court’s infamous Citizens United decision. “I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better,” said Scalia, adding, “That’s what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from.” source (via • follow)
From the piece:
So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.
Agree? Disagree?
It is a simultaneously exciting and exhausting time. There’s a good chance that with healthcare all the chambers are engaged in some way … and at full capacity.Kannon Shanmugam, a former law clerk for Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia • Discussing the June period when the court generally makes its most high-profile decisions. The court has two of those coming up — one on immigration and one on health care — which we imagine are stressing out both the justices and their clerks. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist particularly disliked the June period, once telling a colleague he joined in a majority ruling basically because he wanted it to be over with. Dude liked his vacations.
Just decided: The Supreme Court decided in favor of nightclub owner Antoine Jones, convicted of drug conspiracy based partly on GPS evidence, saying that the federal government needs a warrant when using a GPS device to track someone. Here’s the decision. A key line from Antonin Scalia’s main opinion here: “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny … .Justice Antonin Scalia, emphasis his, writing the opinion of the court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., which, in a 7-2 decision, struck down a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. (via sonicbloom11)
» Three justices are fine, thanks: Reports from Washington suggest that the Supreme Court may be three members down during President Obama’s address tonight. Though a court spokeswoman would not verify which justices would be attending, it’s expected that Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas will skip the address. This seems particularly relevant to Alito, who irritatedly mouthed “not true” during last year’s address, after the President’s criticism of the court’s “Citizen’s United” ruling.
SCOTUS: Should Scalia & Thomas have skipped campaign finance?: Liberal group Common Cause argues that the justices should’ve recused themselves from last year’s campaign finance decision for ties to Koch Industries and advocacy groups. source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
