On court, it's all activism, but different

  • Article by: Ruth Marcus , Washington Post
  • Updated: June 29, 2013 - 5:32 PM

Here’s where I spot hypocrisy and intellectual consistency.

  • 5
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 5 of 5
hobie2Jun. 29, 13 6:12 PM

"If the conservative justices had any awareness of the irony of bemoaning the court’s failure to defer to one piece of democratically adopted legislation the day after overturning another..."... What? Surprised? Has not the past 30 years taught you that the core requisite of a right wing conservative is lack of long term memory.

12
2
pumiceJun. 29, 13 6:15 PM

Ms. Marcus says it all: "[T]he liberal position on both voting rights and DOMA are linked, and impelled by [the sweeping protections the Constitution provides], and by the Constitution's solicitude for minority rights and individual liberty... [Like Ms. Marcus] I have a harder time finding intellectual consistency in the conservative position in the two cases."

10
2
arspartzJun. 29, 13 9:00 PM

Both decisions limited the power of the federal government. Both decisions were appropriate.

1
8
unclemushyJun. 30, 13 8:22 AM

Liberals are complaining that with the voting rights vote the conservatives on the Supreme Court over-ruled the will of congress.

Liberals are hypocrites. Why haven't they claimed the Supreme Court over-ruled the will of the people! The Supreme Court just told 7 million voters in CA that their voices don't matter.

1
10
orpheus90Jun. 30, 13 9:23 PM

In fact, there really is no way to reconcile, at least in any intellectually honest manner, the clanking contradictions the court's conservative served up regarding Voting Rights and DOMA decisions. As jurisprudence goes, the conservative opinions were an absolute shambles and an indication of the growing crisis of incoherence in conservative thinking that's become manifest at virtually every echelon in the right wing establishment. Scalia glaringly exemplifies this cynical incoherence in his dissent on the DOMA decision, decrying the majority decision as a usurpation of Congressional will, yet voting with the conservative majority in support of the demolition of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, disregarding Congress' extensive 2006 review and renewal of the VRA. What to make Scalia's arrogance? Scalia's DOMA dissent, nothing more than a lazy, knee-jerk lament about liberal activism on the court, was solely designed to play as a sound-byte in the right wing media - a PR talking point camouflaged as a judicial opinion. Scalia offered this up knowing full well Fox and its ideological ilk would turn a blind eye to the court's congressional bulldozing on Voting Rights. What conservatives like Scalia are saying to us is: who needs a coherent judicial philosophy so long as we have FOX to score cheap political points? Clearly the lack of an intellectually sound, coherent judicial philosophy is no longer a stumbling block to the court's conservative bloc. And this means what Ms. Marcus asks to be reconciled can't be. There is not equitable balance between the court's integrity and the conservatives' corrosive, cynical debasement of its function.

1
0
  • 1 - 5 of 5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT