Liberals are going hyperbolic about yesterday's decision on the Voting Rights Act, going so far as to say that it is "as lamentable as Plessy or Dred Scott." Please. President Obama and Eric Holder came out to criticize the decision. In other aspects of constitutional law, liberals love to talk about how interpretation of the Constitution should adapt to changing time. But here, when times have changed since 1965, they want to keep the provisions in place that were used to determine where racism was so bad that the federal government had to step in to treat those jurisdictions differently. They refuse to acknowledge that those determinations from 1965 are, almost 50 years later, outdated. Ironically, the Obama administration is determined not to look at results, but only look at those old assessments of these areas; however, when it comes to disparate impact studies of employment decisions, the administration wants to look only at numerical results rather than at what is actually going on in those businesses. But when it comes to voting rights, numerical results as to minority turnout are irrelevant to deciding which areas should get DOJ oversight.
Liberals like to deride Clarence Thomas as being a lawn jockey for Antonin Scalia because they vote together so often. But this handy graph from Scotusblog shows that, up to this week, Thomas and Scalia had voted together 87% of the time, while Kagan has voted with Ginsburg 96% of the time and Sotomayor has voted with Ginsburg 95%. Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 97% of the time. So who's the lawn jockey now?
The Onion gets it right: "Impatient Nation Demands Supreme Court Just Get To The Gay Stuff"
So why is Obama allowing himself to get played by the Taliban?
There were 12 separate IRS groups from across the country targeting conservative groups.
So why, in this age of severely leaky government institutions, don't we get some juicy leaks from the Supreme Court?
New York City unions better be worried about what is happening to union workers in cities like Stockton, California which have been going bankrupt.
I've always thought that it didn't make sense to say that a basketball player is shooting "from downtown" when he makes a three-pointer. After all, underneath the basket is where there seems to be more urban congestion. That should be downtown and beyond the arc should be considered out in the country or the suburbs. Apparently, I'm not the only one puzzled by this mixed metaphor. Here is one explanation for the origin of the phrase.