Archive

Posts Tagged ‘judicial activism’

There They (SCOTUS) Go Again!

Today marks another bleak day in America in terms of the decisions coming out of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)! Now My assertion in this blog  has little to do with the out-come of the court’s completely partisan ruling, but it has more to do with the SCOTUS operating outside of the Constitutionally granted powers given to the SCOTUS. The power in question is the made up term “Judicial Review”!

I would be doing you all an injustice if were to leave the impression that I agree with the decision of SCOTUS today because I DO NOT  AGREE WITH THIS DECISION!! I assert without the slightest ambiguity that the case before the court today should not have been heard at any judicial level. The case of Burewell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. does not warrant a case in court seeing that is attempting to conflate the religious views of the David Green family with the business practices of a for-profit corporation (Hobby Lobby).

The twist of logic of this conflation will be covered in another blog later. But just to be clear, corporations are a separate and distinct legal entity from its owners and a corporation’s primary legal purpose is to separate the owners from the institution making them exempt from financial and legal liabilities. In other words a corporation can make a product that kills you and you are only allowed to get financial restitution from said corporation, but owners are free of all liabilities even if they knew it would kill you. And thus, how do you anyone justify the idea that a corporation has the religious views of the owner, but the owner does not inherit anything from the corporations? It is a one-sided highway that leads to nowhere!

I digress, back to the topic of judicial review! Judicial Review was first coined back in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In the case of Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS declared, for the first time in American history, that the SCOTUS has the  ability to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional. This is a power that is not declared by the Constitution, was never utilized until this case, and in my opinion was pulled out of the backside of the Chief Justice John Marshall court. Read more…

Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement, Scaaaaallliiiiaaaaaaaa (Scalia)!

The politicization of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been evident for some time now, but we are now seeing decisions that demonstrate an amazingly racist, intellectually devoid, and judicially baseless rationales for judicial decisions. Judge (loosely used) Scalia is the embodiment of cancerous judicial activism that does not seek to interpret the constitutionality of laws, it appears that he only seeks to mode law into his warped political worldview.

The new approach to judicial decisions by this SCOTUS is extremely disturbing and warrants the public to be very leery of its decisions and logical leaps. The case of Shelby County v. Holder, which is about whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This is the case that has shined an ugly light on the thinking (or lack thereof) of Scalia!

Scalia has crossed the line from just being a Supreme Court judge that only made very poor judgments into the realm of racial intolerance or just all out racism with his latest remarks. In the current case before the Supreme Court, Scalia referred to act of continuing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. A beautifully ugly and racist reference to an act that merely ensures the protection of minorities from discriminatory voting practices by certain states; which was predominately displayed in the election of 2012. His gigantically inappropriate reference to the right to vote as an “entitlement” only demonstrates his ignorance as to what an entitlement is and the stated purpose of the act itself.

Scalia’s rationale for opposition of the act is laced with stupidity and just all out preemptive assertions/justifications that have no base in fact and should not be exhibited by a member of the Supreme Court. Scalia rants by saying “initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it”. He then trolls on about how every-time they reenacted the law there was some measure of opposition to its re-adoption.

Scalia’s logic leap continues as he states that in the last re-enactment of the law there was a unanimous vote to extend the act and this is his rationale for calling the act of reenacting this provision of the law “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. His baseless and fatuous assertion is that the mere fact that the law was passed unanimously is evidence that the act should come into question.

Actually Scalia said it worst with this gem of moronic rationalizing “And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Under this warped logic, the fact that Scalia was confirmed to the bench by unanimous vote by Congress should put into question his nomination; which makes as much sense as what he stated. Scalia must have forgotten this fact before he made his statement. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: