home

Scott Brown's Favorite SCOTUS Justice: Scalia

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:33:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In tonight's debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, the 'independent" Brown was asked who is his favorite Supreme Court Justice.

His answer: Antonin Scalia.

I expect that to be in ads tomorrow.

Scalia arguing that the Constitution does not bar gender discrimination:

Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination. Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

Full version on the other side.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Annoying Media Site of the Day >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Scott Brown's Favorite SCOTUS Justice: Scalia | 80 comments (80 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    remember, justice scalia is an (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:26:47 PM EST
    "originalist", which, loosely translated, means, "it means any damn thing i want it to mean, at the particular time i want it to mean it."

    he cannot retire quickly enough.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#41)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    I think the only way Scalia is leaving the SCOTUS is to go push daisies.

    Parent
    Well, at least.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by bmaz on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 02:54:25 AM EST
    ...it wasn't Thomas.

    So, we've got that going for us.

    Well, Scott Brown (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    may have gotten a two-fer.  I have always felt that it would be an economic move if we eliminated Justice Thomas' position and just gave Scalia two votes.

    Parent
    I have commented several times (3.67 / 3) (#45)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    previously on similar cracks directed at Justice Thomas.  The Scalia/Thomas rate of agreement last Term (93%) was higher than any other, but not significantly more than Roberts/Alito (91%), and there are nine pairings at or above 85%.  And why would you suggest that Thomas follows Scalia rather than the other way around? I personally believe it is fair to criticize Thomas's legal philosophy (I certainly do), or even his choice to participate almost never in questioning at oral argument, but I do not think that the implied criticism of his ability and (intellectual) qualifications are legitimate at all.

    Parent
    Wow. Usually we agree, Dan, but one time (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    I think you're off base, and say so in a calm tone with specific reasons, and I get a troll rating?  That's harsh, man!

    Parent
    Let us agree to disagree: (none / 0) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    You continue to comment on Justice Thomas' ability and (intellectual) qualifications and I will continue to make cracks directed at him.  However, from my perspective, Thomas's impaired legal philosophy and his almost never participating in questioning at oral argument are foundational to fair and even, irreverent, criticism of his ability and (intellectual) qualifications.  But, I am willing to alter my crack if it pleases, so that in the interest of economy, we can lose Scalia and give Thomas two votes.  And, my rating of your comment is based on the superior, if not bullying, attitude toward my opinionated crack.

    Parent
    An agreement to disagree would seem (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    to call for detente on troll ratings; reserving the right to troll rate on the basis of tone seems more like a thinly-disguised way to comment on content.

    Parent
    Well apart from the ratings matter, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    I'd like to see Peter lay out the argument that Clarence isn't fair game to be criticized for lack of ability or sufficient intellectual heft.  Bec I'm with Keys that the circumstantial evidence going back to his hearings if not earlier suggests a second-rate intellect at best.  A rigid ideologue and mediocre mind.  Morally the estimation is even worse.

    But maybe Peter has evidence I haven't considered.

    Parent

    I'm reminded of the 4th grade (none / 0) (#57)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:37:31 PM EST
    fight! fight!

    (snark)

    Parent

    I didn't read Peter's comment as (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:41:31 PM EST
    praising, touting or defending Thomas' intellectual abilities.

    If we generally agree that Scalia's legal reasoning seems flawed, and Thomas agrees with him over 90% of the time, should we take from that that it is Thomas with the intellectual deficits, and not Scalia, with whom Thomas tends to agree?

    Please don't take this as a defense of Thomas; I didn't think he was qualified at the time of his nomination, and what he has contributed in the years since seems to reflect that he is little more than a guaranteed vote for whatever the conservative position is.

    Does that make him intellectually inferior?  I don't know that we can draw that conclusion - which is, I think, all Peter was trying to point out.

    Or maybe I didn't read Peter correctly - I'm happy to be corrected if that's the case.

    Parent

    That's the way (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    I read it as well.

    Parent
    That's half of it (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    The rest, frankly, is that no other Supreme Court justice, no matter how "adequately qualified," is so consistently referenced by first name, nor so constantly accused of intellectual inferiority. Granted that the comments are not intended as such, but it all has a racist tinge to me. Read his opinions; objectively, they are the equal of most of his colleagues'.  Read his speeches; ditto. (Disregarding the ideology and philosophy.)  That's all I'm saying.

    Parent
    "they are the equal of most of his (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    colleagues." If Peter is right about this, and I think he is, we are burdened with what are, at best, a collection mediocre intellects on our nation's highest court.

    Scalia is certainly no bright intellectual light, his PR, courtesy of a mediocre press, notwithstanding. Kennedy? Snotty and condescending to women, but not a big brain.

    And I am not impressed with John Roberts and his Harvard law degree. I don't see any signs of a towering legal intellect at work here. And he is the most blatantly politically-biased and politically motivated chief justice of my lifetime, IMO, more than even Rehnquist.

    Breyer, like all the men on the court, seems almost willfully ignorant of the effect court rulings have on people's lives.

    The only one I give any real props to is Ginsburg. Maybe that is because she is clearly the more in tune with my beliefs, but I hope not.

    As for Kagan and Sotomayor, well, it is too soon for me to tell where they will land.

    I am not a lawyer. So, these are the opinions of a long-time court watcher who spent her formative years during Earl Warren's tenure as chief justice, and so, knows it doesn't have to be this way.

    Parent

    Peter G, (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 08:07:38 PM EST
    I regret the rating given to your comment above; it was intemperate and unjustified.   Your sensitivity to possible racial undertones in criticisms of Justice Thomas enlightens and clarifies your response to me.  

    Parent
    Nicely said (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    You can change the rating, you know.

    Parent
    Darn. Wrote long detailed reply (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    to Peter, hit Preview, but it got wiped out.

    Quickly:  no racial animus here just lingering anger that we're stuck with this mediocrity for 22 more years probably.  Very politically cynical move by Poppy Bush.

    And no I'm not impressed by Thomas putting his name to opinions and speeches almost certainly heavily written by clerks.  When or if I ever hear Thomas in unscripted legal discussion or debate in the future and I'm impressed, then I might climb down a tad from considering him one of the most mediocre minds to sit on the Bench in decades.

    As for first names I also use Fat Tony (Scalia) and Thin Tony (Anthony Kennedy).  I used to refer to Rehnquist as Wild Bill.  Yes there is animus behind those terms too -- political, just as with Thomas.  

    But as to intellect Scalia is much sharper, but too narrow, ideological and morally dubious.  And, btw, I try to avoid racially charged terms like "inferior intellect" in the Thomas context, which another poster above introduced here.

    Parent

    Would have much preferred to hear (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 09:52:36 AM EST
    "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" come out of Warren's mouth...

    As for Scott Brown, his choice of Scalia doesn't surprise me; there are a lot of people who think Scalia is brilliant - and many of them also tend to translate that perceived brilliance as Scalia being right.

    To me, Scalia is to the judicial branch what Dick Cheney was to the executive.

    True (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    but you're not an undecided, or independent, or moderate Brown voter that Warren needs to capture to win the election. In the competition for best Supreme Court answer to chase those on the fence, Warren's answer is the winner.

    Parent
    Hadn't thought of it that way, but you're (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    right - it was the best answer for the demographic she needs to win.

    I wonder who these two would have chosen if they could not have picked someone currently on the Court; something tells me that would really have stumped Scott Brown.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    it would have been nice, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had indeed been her first choice, that she would have had the political courage to say it.

    I set an unrealistically high bar I suppose.

    Parent

    Elizabeth Warren's choice (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    of Elena Kagan seemed to be the right one for her to make.  Ms. Warren and Ms. Kagan were faculty colleagues at Harvard Law and  Elena Kagan was also dean of the Harvard Law School.  Her support of Justice Kagan advances and re-enforces their scholarly affinities  and colleagueship during their joint academic tenures.

    Parent
    The right choice to make... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    is the choice your beliefs, constitutional interpretations, and conscience dictate...not who simply shares your alma mater or former workplace.

    I'm surprised she didn't pick Ginsberg, the no-brainer choice for left-leaners.  Scott Brown wasn't scared to be honest...not saying Warren was dishonest, only she knows...but a surprising choice.

    I'm with lentinel...maybe we expect too much, but this and the tough Iran talk have kinda got me down on her from being very very high on her.

    Parent

    Sorry, I seem to have (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    made a clumsy argument on behalf of Elizabeth Warren's choice. I  hoped to make the point that their academic relationship gave her a special opportunity to know and understand Justice Kagan's thinking and that it corresponded well with her beliefs.  Pride in an accomplished former colleague may be inextricably intwined in her assessment but need not be linked simply to alma mater or workplace.  

    Parent
    Point taken... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    if you have a positive personal relationship with somebody, it's human nature to prefer that person.

    I sure hope it wasn't a political calculation manuever with no concern for truth, too much of that sh*t in this game.

    Parent

    And Kagan was an Obama pick (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    support for Obama is pretty high in Mass and with Brown running ads that feature Obama positively, it doesn't seem like a bad political move.

    Parent
    And Brown voted against Kagan (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    Warren twists the knife by saying Kagan.

    Parent
    Solely "political moves"... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    are inherently harmful, imo.

    Otherwise we're just voting for preferred brands of bullsh*t, with no clue of what to actually expect once elected to govern.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    Kagan isn't a huge departure from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they are both on the left side of the Court, even if Kagan is a little less so.

    It's not like choosing Kagan has changed my understanding of what EW stands for.  It was perhaps the most effective way for EW to illustrate what she stands for.  Or heck, maybe she just likes Kagan more, I dunno.  ;)

    Parent

    I hear ya... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    total speculation that Warren was less than honest with her answer...I have no reason to doubt her sincerity.  

    Kagan is no Ginsberg though, when it comes to civil liberties anyway...there's Ruth and then there is everybody else on the court in that regard.  Ginsberg strikes me as old school left...Kagan and Sotomayor as new school corporate centrist.

    Just a little perturbed by this "wise political move" talk, ya know what I'm sayin'?  It's everything that is wrong with politics, cheerleading misleading insincerity in the name of winning elections.  When it comes to my representation, I don't a wise political mover, I want wisdom and good ideas.  

    Go ahead, call me Don Quixote, don't I know it!;)

    Parent

    In politics (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    Prior to the election, when you are nursing a lead, discretion is the better part of valor. The unwise political move sends you home to the basement to tilt at windmills. Even Sancho Panza with a voter ID card can't save you then.

    Parent
    Discretion is it... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    or is it deception?  Is it ok for a car salesman to be discreet or deceive about the car to close the sale?  Or how about a lawyer to snag a client?

    I understand your most pragmatic view, even if I disagree as to any valor to be found in it (politics and valor, in the same sentence, ha!;)...tell me you know where I'm coming from at least...that when you excuse "discretion" or "deception" before the election, the winner tends to bring it to the office.

    Parent

    Absolutely understand your view (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    I just see a better chance at progress if the Dem candidate wins the election, and the Republican candidate is left to shill on Fox Punditry rather than holding office in Washington DC.

    And here I was thinking you'd question how I knew Sancho was a Democrat.

    Parent

    And Citizens United... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    ...must be his favorite decision.  Since it is the reason we DON'T really have representative legislatures anymore, not that they were doing much of the people's work before, but that ruling all but put the nails in the civic coffin. And to think Scalia has about fifty kids, the dude's spawn will be roaming the country for centuries.  Oh the horror!

    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    think he could think of any names of Supreme Court justices when the question was asked. He stalled for time... "That's a good question".... Then, Scalia is the first name that came into his small mind, so he said it. Then, after the crowd is obviously upset, he scratches his brain and comes up with Kennedy and Roberts... still not good with the crowd, and then Sotomayor. Covering all the bases. By then, his credibility was down the drain.

    He was toast by the time Elizabeth Warren named Kagan.

    According to Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    EW also had a flub.  You see, when asked by moderator Gregory "Which Rs could you work with in the senate if elected?" she answered Dick Lugar.

    Technically not the best answer since he's leaving the senate, but politically not unreasonable.  And not quite on the same scale as Brown's poltically tone deaf Scalia response.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    that was her way of saying that she couldn't work with any senate Rs.  ;-)

    Parent
    If I remember right (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    Brown's answer was far more flawed. When asked about working with bipartisan Senators he only mentioned Republicans Lugar and Olympia Snowe, neither of them across the aisle and neither in the Senate starting next year.

    Parent
    It is an unfar question (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    She is not currently in the Senate.  She does not have a basis of saying who she could work with before she gets there and gets to know them.

    Parent
    Ideally EW should have prefaced (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    her answer -- Susan Collins -- by noting how, unfortunately and sadly, the Tea Party influence has so decimated the moderate wing of the R party such that there are very few reasonable and not extremist R senators left to work with across the aisle.

    She should have turned the Q around like that and made the audience reflect on the RW nature of the Rs these days, and not answered so narrowly.  Missed opportunity, but small compared to Brown's more glaring gaffe.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by sj on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    that technically it was the perfect answer.  Should she win the race, she gave no leverage for anyone to pressure her to work with an existing Republican if it's against her principles or her better judgement.  

    It doesn't appear to have been a completely smooth response, but she didn't let herself get backed into an irrecoverable corner.   Better to present as a gaffe or awkward moment that has a fleeting impression then to be stuck with long-term consequences.  IMO.

    Now I have no way of knowing if that's what she intended or not.  That's just my unsolicited opinion.

    Parent

    Unintentionally (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    brings important attention to the Indiana Senate race where the Tea Party taking out Republican moderate Lugar now makes for a tight race and a potential Dem takeover seat.

    Dem Joe Donnelly currently has a VERY slim lead in the polls against Tea Party darling Richard Mourdock.

    Parent

    Maybe this will be a game changing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:50:55 PM EST
    comment.  

    I love that shot of Warren's face (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:47:09 PM EST
    as she does her best not to laugh out loud.

    Parent
    You could tell he had never given any thought (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Angel on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    to that question before it was asked.  Reminds me of Dubya in some ways.

    Parent
    Reminds (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    me of when they asked W. who was his favorite philosopher. He obviously didn't know of any philosophers... so he answered, "Jesus".

    Actually, JC is my favorite philosopher, but I actually agree with what he is reported to have said.

    I wish there had been a follow-up to W. asking him to state to which of JC's philosophies did he subscribe. That would have stumped his sorry azz.

    Parent

    Funny how in the 2000 cycle (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    no mainstream media reporter got around to asking him any follow up Qs.  Or at least of the kind that might tend to expose him as ignorant.

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    think that is because they were at least as ignorant as he was.
    They still are.

    Parent
    You've hit upon the issue (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    I've been touting for years, the mind numbing ignorance of current events, and the issues that comprise them, displayed by our so called journalists. They are not news people; they are actors hired for the purpose of looking attractive, and understanding that in-depth analysis of actual news is not conducive for the mind set necessary to be receptive to the avalanche of commercials that precede, and follow, the sound bites masquerading as "news."


    Parent
    Hence the disparaging term (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    "Talking heads," which has been around for quite awhile, Shooter.  As long as they look good and have a nice speaking voice, they are "journalists."   {{Sigh}}
    (Although, I must add that it seems to be even more important for the women in the "news business" to be young-looking and attractive, and preferably blonde, than it is for the men.)
    I'm (barely) old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow, and I certainly remember Walter Cronkite.  I seriously doubt that either would get a job in today's (so-called) "journalism" environment.        :-(

    Parent
    They could (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    just not on cablekindanews.

    Parent
    Didn't a lot of those guys start in radio? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    Brings to mind the old expression that someone has a "real face for radio."

    I don't think there's much new about pretty faces getting top billing - even the Mary Tyler Moore show lampooned the pretty face/empty head with the Ted Baxter character - and that was how many years ago?

    But, yes - men have been allowed to age, women not so much; the advent of HDTV may be changing that a little - its sharp focus hasn't helped anyone's longevity in front of the cameras.

    Parent

    I think that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    a lot of them "back in the day," did start in radio.  Edward R. Murrow certainly did, and so did Walter Cronkite- who was, in fact, recruited by Murrow to join CBS News television back in the early days.
    Oh, heck, with the ever-improving state of 3-D computer graphics and computer animation, how much longer will it be before there are no more actual humans reading the news but, instead, good-looking computer animations?
    Never mind "oh heck."  Oh, He!!.  I'm making myself depressed.

    Parent
    Ted Baxter (none / 0) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 04:19:08 PM EST
    was a pretty face?

    lol.

    Now, I gotta see a picture of your husband....(ducking)

    Parent

    They (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 04:35:32 PM EST
    "silver fox".

    Parent
    And, is any one else offended (none / 0) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    by the gorgeous blond with the blinding white, ear to ear smile, clueless to the fact that she's reading, "hundreds die in torrential mudslides in SE Asia," and, without missing a beat, following with, "and, you won't believe what the Kardashians did Friday night.....details after the break."


    Parent
    Well, I sure am, Shooter (none / 0) (#65)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    Which is why I avoid TV news like the plague in any form, whenever possible.

    Parent
    Hey, Shooter, check out Brian Williams (none / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 06:55:35 PM EST
    some night; he segues from one story to the next and never changes his tone - and hardly even pauses for breath - even as he goes from a serious story to a sad one to a funny one.

    As for Ted Baxter, he was a send-up of the impeccably coifed, overly tanned news anchor who had blindingly white teeth, but not enough sense to be able to wear the right expression for the stories he was reporting.  Sometimes he'd realize midway that he was grinning through some grim news, and abruptly shift to a scowl.

    [and my husband is quite nice looking, thank you very much!]

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 07:06:43 PM EST
    So is my husband, Anne.   ;-)

    Parent
    Supposedly the Ted Baxter character (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 07:14:37 PM EST
    came in part from a really bombastic right-wing superpatriot  L.A. news anchor, George Putnam, who worked for years on a local independent LA station (KTLA) in the sixties and thereafter.  

    A real piece of work, entertaining to watch bec so over the top, back when I believe his station was owned by the old cowboy actor-crooner Gene Autry.  Fit in nicely, from a wacko political extremist perspective, with then LA mayor Sam Yorty (a right wing nominal Dem), as well as with the emerging RW white citizenry of next door Orange County.

    Parent

    You described him perfectly! (none / 0) (#72)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    And you described Sam Yorty perfectly too. Democrats really couldn't stand him, he was like an early Blue Dog. I distinctly remember the slogan "Yorty Stinks" going around during his years in office.

    I met George Putnam when I was a teenager -- won't say why or how on this site -- and I think he was totally unaware of what a caricature he was.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 09:20:45 PM EST
    for the Ted baxter flashback, and his hilarious mid flight corrections. lol.

    And, you're right about the blow dried, pretty boy anchors. But, since they've been acting the part longer they hide the fraud a little better.

    Now, regarding your other half, I'm just jealous, that's all:)

    Parent

    So, we'll expect Justice Scalia (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:02:55 PM EST
    to uphold the State of Texas' college admission methods. .

    Certainly not! (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:43:17 PM EST
    The original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause was to protect white males in the South from being disadvantaged by misguided liberal efforts to help the freed slaves or their descendents.  Didn't you know that?  What are you, totally ignorant of American constitutional history?

    Parent
    of course, that's just today, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 11:19:27 PM EST
    it can originally mean something entirely different tomorrow.

    Parent
    Scott Brown (none / 0) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    is just plain ignorant and it shows.

    And speaking of Scott Brown (none / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    and Republicans in general.

    This morning a Commonwealth Court judge ruled Pennsylvania's voter-id law was to be put on put on hold until after the election.

    Sort of...poll workers can still ask for ID, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    and anyone without it will have to cast a provisional ballot; I can foresee some problems if turnout is heavy and there are hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots cast that have to be hand-counted.

    David Dayen:

    However, Simpson did not stop implementation of the entire voter ID law, known in Pennsylvania as Act 18. First of all, the part of the law requiring proof of identification for absentee voting will go through, as the plaintiffs dropped that from their request for an injunction. More important, Judge Simpson very narrowly crafted the injunction. First of all, poll workers can still ask voters in November to produce a valid ID. Here's what Judge Simpson wrote about that:

    I reject the underlying assertion that the offending activity is the request to produce photo ID; instead, I conclude that the salient offending conduct is voter disenfranchisement. As a result, I will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement.

    The only part that directly results in disenfranchisement, in Simpson's ruling, is the part where voters without ID who cast a provisional ballot have that ballot tossed. Simpson says that these ballots will count. However, nothing in his ruling says that voters without ID will be allowed to cast a regular ballot. His entire injunction refers to removing the voter ID-related circumstances under which "A provisional ballot shall not be counted." I don't know how you can read this without concluding that everyone without ID will have to cast a provisional ballot.

    A lot is going to depend on how well this gets communicated to Pennsylvanians; I think it might be very easy for some voters to conclude that their ballots won't get counted unless they have ID.

    Parent

    I'd like to know (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    how Anne can type a comment that's twice as long as mine, and do it ten minutes faster, and beat me to the punch on the right answer. My two finger typing excuse won't cut it this time.

    Parent
    speaking of voter i.d. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    I don't know for sure but I believe Florida's is similar. Thanks to some of the info friends on this site gave me I now have been registered to vote and have a valid Florida Driver's License as of today along with my updated Disabled Parking Permit and I didn't have to change my name as the Duval County Tax Assessor insisted I must do or change my name legally to what it already was legally. Jacksonville city limits covers several counties. Today I was in Nassau County part of Jax and went into the Tax Assessor's office there and had it all done with a new license/photo I.d. in about 15 minutes rather than doing all the changes the other office informed me I would have to do to be "legal".
    Many Thanks

    Parent
    Hurray! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:06:14 PM EST
    So glad for you, Amiss.

    Parent
    Great news, Amiss. (none / 0) (#78)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:35:01 PM EST
    Glad to hear it worked out for you.

    My sister, who live-in Tampa, has been going through a similar, Orwellian experience trying to renew her license, or even get a state ID card, and register to vote.

    Not sure if her situation has been resolved yet.

    Parent

    something was on the news tonight (none / 0) (#79)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 11:00:39 PM EST
    about a crooked voter registration outfit operating in Fla. for the R's.  Was getting dishwasher emptied so did not catch the name of the organization and them being "run out of the state". Reminded me of the "old days". LoL.

    Parent
    Bill Nelson offered his (none / 0) (#80)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 11:13:54 PM EST
    help and in a very timely fashion. I honestly took the idea someone here suggested (so sorry I can't remember exactly which of you suggested trying a different county) but my husband suggested I not tell them of my previous problems trying to get id and registered so I kept my mouth closed acted innoceent and kind of  ditzy so the guy really wanted to help me. LOL.

    Parent
    That's not entirely true (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    From my reading it was a little weaker whereby poll workers can ask for picture ID and if voters don't have one they have to cast a provisional ballot. Irritating but they all still get to vote, and (again from my translation) the provisional ballots will all be counted. Just another irritant for poll workers on election day to jam up the lines.

    My interpretation is hereby open to TL legal evaluation.

    Link here

    Parent

    Think Progress is reporting that (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    voters without ID in November will be allowed to cast regular ballots:

    Buried in the opinion is a line establishing that the requirement that voters without IDs cast only provisional ballots will also not be in effect during the November election. After describing a "transition" provision from January 1, 2012 until September 17, 2012 where voters who do not show ID may cast a ballot "without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot," the judge concludes that "the injunction will have the effect of extending the express transition provisions of Act 18 through the general election." The impact of this line is that voters without ID will cast normal, not provisional, ballots this November, but they will still be asked for ID.

    That would be a better result than having to hand-count thousands and thousands of provisional ballots.

    Parent

    That's great news (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    The ruling in that account makes sense, is fair and reasonable, and is also consistent with a few MSM reports I've seen.

    Looks like Obama won't have to sweat out a nightmare voter ID confusion situation in PA and can now put those EVs in his column.

    Parent

    I think a lot will depend on what kind (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    of misinformation gets broadcast to voters that will lead them to believe they're out of luck if they have no photo ID - and you know that there will be an abundance of that, as Republicans see what they thought was a foolproof plan to suppress the Democratic vote get thwarted.

    And it's not just misinformation being disseminated to voters that is a concern, it's misinformation that gets disseminated to poll workers, the people on the front lines who have the power to accept or reject potential voters.

    As someone who worked the polls through several election cycles in Maryland, something tells me that Pennsylvania will have more than the usual number of poll watchers on hand in the precincts - people registered with the Board of Elections to observe and note irregularities in the voting process.

    Pennsylvania: the new Florida?

    Parent

    Misinfo from the Rs is SOP (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 11:19:21 AM EST
    in any key state.  But this isn't 2000 where the Rs had a monopoly on the media and also outorganized and outsmarted the Gore camp in various mischievous ways in FL.  O's campaign seems much better prepared on the ground than Gore's and we now have sufficient media means on our side to get out correct info.

    That's my early morning positive outlook on the situation anyway.  If we do our job right, given the size of O's lead in recent PA polls, this should not be another FL 2000 disaster.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    that was my understanding.  Poll workers can ask for an ID but requiring one to vote a REGULAR ballot is forbidden.  

    Voters on the registration rolls without a photo ID will NOT have to use a provisional ballot.

    But as you say, the problem now is informing voters.

    Parent

    Scott Brown's Favorite SCOTUS Justice: Scalia | 80 comments (80 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment