March 1, 2013 at 2:36pm 93 notes
supreme courtvoting rightsDavid Horseyeditorial cartoons
Editorial cartoonist and commentator David Horsey takes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for his comments this week during oral arguments over a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2006 when Congress extended the act for 25 years, Horsey writes: The vote was overwhelming in the House, unanimous in the Senate and was hailed by President George W. Bush as a victory for American democracy. In court on Wednesday, however, Scalia mocked that vote. He said the Senate’s unanimity simply proved the law had not been given serious consideration. The senators were afraid, he said, to cast a vote against a law with a “wonderful” name. He went on to assert that the reauthorization f thewas merely “a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” That sort of legal reasoning may be good enough for someone sitting on a bar stool well into his third pint, but it is not good enough for the highest court in the land. Scalia makes self-serving assumptions about what was on the minds of senators in 2006 — afraid, not serious, enamored with a name — with no facts to back up his barbs. Read the full post: http://lat.ms/XeTuFn

Editorial cartoonist and commentator David Horsey takes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task for his comments this week during oral arguments over a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In 2006 when Congress extended the act for 25 years, Horsey writes:

The vote was overwhelming in the House, unanimous in the Senate and was hailed by President George W. Bush as a victory for American democracy.

In court on Wednesday, however, Scalia mocked that vote. He said the Senate’s unanimity simply proved the law had not been given serious consideration. The senators were afraid, he said, to cast a vote against a law with a “wonderful” name. He went on to assert that the reauthorization f thewas merely “a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

That sort of legal reasoning may be good enough for someone sitting on a bar stool well into his third pint, but it is not good enough for the highest court in the land. Scalia makes self-serving assumptions about what was on the minds of senators in 2006 — afraid, not serious, enamored with a name — with no facts to back up his barbs.

Read the full post: http://lat.ms/XeTuFn

  1. truthandvirtues reblogged this from latimes
  2. soitgoats reblogged this from latimes
  3. bhmarion reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  4. parsecstogo reblogged this from mquester
  5. lazyducklings reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  6. liberalmusings reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  7. uhbitchshutup reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  8. livelaughloveliberally reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  9. inloveipersevere reblogged this from randomness-from-thisoldguy
  10. mquester reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  11. randomness-from-thisoldguy reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  12. carriemp reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  13. stiffcrosscurrents reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  14. truth-has-a-liberal-bias reblogged this from latimes
  15. mohjo09 said: I hate this Justice’s reasoning & thought process.
  16. pye-it-tee reblogged this from lady-jojenreeds
  17. kiwiesti reblogged this from latimes
  18. thisisamansjob reblogged this from latimes