Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats introduce Supreme Court Ethics Act to helpfully suggest the Supreme Court have some (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I blame a third-rate actor and his buddy GHWB (7+ / 0-)

    There have always been hacks like "Whizzer" White who were appointed to the Court by their good buddy, the President, but before 1981 no one ever made it a policy to appoint those who are totally incompetent or corrupt.

    Scalia is an odious fool, but he is also brilliant (see also: fight over Fed, Larry Summers). Like Summers, Scalia has a far higher opinion of himself than anyone else in the room does. He has sold out to Wall Street. He doesn't give a damn if he appears to be corrupt. He makes huge noise about how important the fourth or fifth or sixth amendment are, but then when there is a real case that really matters, like Clapper v. Amnesty, he proves himself to be just another craven defender of intrusive government. His wit is the wit of a sophomore, not of a wise man.

    Clarence Thomas has no such redeeming features. Had he been a moderate fool, he would just be Byron White redux, but he is not and, from some of his opinions, it appears that he really is the kind of person who shows why we need to make certain that affirmative action never becomes a quota system. Clearly GHWB didn't give a damn whether he appointed a qualified justice.

    Both of these terrible judges allege that they follow the intent of the writers, but their votes to gut the Voting Rights Act despite the clear language of the enabling amendment show that they don't give a damn about the original meaning of the provisions.

    Americans can make our country better.

    by freelunch on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:55:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site