Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush-era Democratic Cowardice / Denial Reemerges in Face of VRA Ruling (13 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, for one thing, ... (0+ / 0-)

    SCOTUS rulings definitely aren't "lawless".  For another, had the diarist been successful in immediately impeaching SCOTUS after its VRA ruling, the LBGT-favorable rulings could not have occurred.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:02:05 PM PDT

    •  Ah, the "Divine Right of Judges." (0+ / 0-)

      I never know quite how to express just how insane such comments are.

      SCOTUS rulings definitely aren't "lawless".
      LOL...


      For another, had the diarist been successful in immediately impeaching SCOTUS after its VRA ruling, the LBGT-favorable rulings could not have occurred.
      The rulings were virtually simultaneous, so that's a crock.  And yes, I'm pretty sure a Court where the 4-member law-abiding minority became the majority would have struck down DOMA.  

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:08:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Explain, then, ... (0+ / 0-)

        citing legal precedent not personal opinion, how the rulings you disagree with were "lawless", and how those you agree with were not.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:32:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 15th Amendment: (0+ / 0-)
          Section 1.
          The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

          Section 2.
          The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

          The Congress did so.  The Congress passed VRA, and the Congress has not yet chosen to change the preclearance provisions.  But because it's convenient for the GOP to remove those provisions, the Roberts court declared itself the power to decide what is and is not appropriate legislation, and ludicrously claims to be standing up for equal rights by rescinding the mechanisms that guarantee it.  

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 12:45:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Lawless" means lacking authority. (0+ / 0-)

            But I'll wait to see what true constitutional experts have to say, as it's not my field.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 01:46:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That might be the definition of lawless (0+ / 0-)

              under authoritarianism.  But in a nation of laws defined as social contracts, lawless means decisions that aren't at least philosophically grounded in the law, let alone a complete departure from everything on the books.

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 02:01:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site