Skip to main content

If you were surprised that NBC edited the George Zimmerman 911 call to make it appear that he was a raging racist, just looking for an innoncent black kid to shoot, then you might want to get your smelling salts ready.

The media is at it again…..

Despite giving a 28 page long dissent in the Arizona immigration case and citing dozens and dozens of prescedent cases upon which he based his dissent, some “unbiased” media outlets have “selectively” edited Justice Scalia’s dissent and are reporting that he is.....a racist. This is based on two sentences:

In the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.
OMG! Someone mentioned the words “freed blacks” without a groveling apology? He MUST be racist to even mention such a thing. And so blogs and quasi-media outlets across the country are raging against the racist Scalia.

Here is a little inconvenient truth…..those two sentences….they were a part of an entire paragraph, which was part of a passage concerning state sovereignty. Paragraphs discussing the state's position in a previous states rights case back in 1883.

Here is the actual entire passage:

Two other provisions of the Constitution are an acknowledgment of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.  Article I provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports,  except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.” Art. I, §10, cl. 2 (emphasis added).  This assumed what everyone assumed: that the States could exclude from their territory dangerous or unwholesome goods.  A later portion of the same section provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War,  unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Art. I, §10, cl. 3 (emphasis added).  This limits the States’ sovereignty (in a way not relevant here) but leaves intact their inherent power to protect their territory.

Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks.  Neuman, The Lost Century of American Immigration (1776–1875), 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1833, 1835, 1841–1880 (1993).  State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.2 Id., at 1883.

In fact, the controversy surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts involved a debate over whether, under the Constitution, the States had exclusive authority to enact such immigration laws. Criticism of the Sedition Act has become a prominent feature of our First Amendment jurisprudence, see,  e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 273–276 (1964)

The above passage was a small part of the 28 page long dissent that was summed up thusly by Justice Scalia:
Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.
Wouldn’t it be great if journalists actually did their job….reporting the facts…instead of manipulating the news for rating, power, and fame?

If you have interest in reading the entire dissent and not just the media's clip job version you can find it here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/...

Originally posted to Alexandrea Merrell on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM PDT.

Also republished by Trolls.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site