• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

Dumb motherfuckers cannot understand a consequence that most 4 year olds have fully sorted out.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Welcome to day five of every-bit-as-bad-as-you-thought-it-would-be.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

They are not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / This Makes Me Nervous

This Makes Me Nervous

by John Cole|  May 26, 201511:07 pm| 74 Comments

This post is in: Activist Judges!

FacebookTweetEmail

Who knows what kind of fuckwittery Alito and Scalia will brew up here:

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The court’s ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.

The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.

A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.

The right wing of the court is so brazenly politicized that I have absolutely zero faith that they will rule in any way other than to entrench the rump of the country in political power and do what they can to neuter the votes of who they view as untermensch.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Bernie Sanders (Officially) Joins the Race
Next Post: Sooooo… How ‘Bout that FIFA Stuff? »

Reader Interactions

74Comments

  1. 1.

    RP

    May 26, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    John, you’re such a pessimist. Maybe they’ll come up with a reasoned way to thread the needle.
    For example, they could rule that the brown ones can be counted, but only as 6/10’s of a Murkin.
    Heck, there might even be a precedent somewhere that can be cited.

  2. 2.

    Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason

    May 26, 2015 at 11:15 pm

    What about kids who aren’t 18 now but will be before the next census? Do they count? Why not, they’ll be voters. Or is it the same as people moving in and out of the district over 10 years.

    I see nothing good coming out of this.

  3. 3.

    srv

    May 26, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Democratic rules are whatever benefits my party.

    You might as well say them immigrants are worth 3/5ths a vote.

  4. 4.

    Brachiator

    May 26, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Especially now that it has been officially added to the dictionary, WTF??

  5. 5.

    mkd

    May 26, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Always, always, the make up of the Supreme Court worries me more than the dynamic between the House and Congress. The decision of that body is so full of impact

  6. 6.

    Omnes Omnibus

    May 26, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    It could also shift power to urban areas where the population doesn’t include a shitload of children.

  7. 7.

    Belafon

    May 26, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    @srv: As well as all of those 10-17 year olds that will be eligible before the next census.

  8. 8.

    fuckwit

    May 26, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    This is fucking scary. It has the potential to whip the rug right out from under us, just as the Citizens United and the 2010 Rethug gerrymandering of districts did to push the clock back on everything we’ve been working for.

    It isn’t quite the Permanent Rethug Majority, but it’s a 20-year-plus Rethug majority. We won’t have a planet left by then.

    So we’ll have already-gerrymandered congressional districts that are even further gerrymandered to discount further any urban and/or immigrant areas.

    If this gets Citizens United, then the only hope is for the R’s to self-destruct in a huge cloud of dust. That’s not really a strategy since they may bring the whole country and indeed the world down with it.

  9. 9.

    Valdivia

    May 26, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    what is the worst case scenario ruling?

  10. 10.

    Belafon

    May 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: Yep. If the ruling went something like “You must be eligible to vote in the election of the year the census is held,” then the suburbs around Dallas would lost a lot of voting power that would shift to Dallas. Suburbs are building a lot of schools because there are a lot of kids.

  11. 11.

    Omnes Omnibus

    May 26, 2015 at 11:38 pm

    @Valdivia: I don’t think that the plaintiffs have gamed out the possibilities here. Suburbs and exurbs with large populations (that include children who are not eligible voters) could lose to decadent urban enclaves where gays and other preverts predominate.

  12. 12.

    Valdivia

    May 26, 2015 at 11:39 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    upvote for the libertines. sounds good to me.

  13. 13.

    FlipYrWhig

    May 26, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    There are districts punching above their weight due to prisoners (non-voters) being counted as residents. This would end that practice.

    The idea that your large population of children wouldn’t demand concomitant resources seems like a tough sell.

  14. 14.

    Omnes Omnibus

    May 26, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    @Valdivia: Co-sign.

  15. 15.

    fuckwit

    May 26, 2015 at 11:43 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: That’s OK, there are several groups of non-voting citizens: kids, immigrants, prisoners, ex-felons (hello, racism?), etc. Most prisons are in rural areas so cutting them out would undermine the R’s. Districts with lots of kids could be R in some places or D in others. But they’ll find a way not to do that. For example, the Roberts court could square the circle by including kids but not non-citizens or ex-felons. They could make it a neutron bomb that decimates D districts but keeps R districts intact. In fact, if there’s a pool my money is on them doing exactly that.

  16. 16.

    xenos

    May 26, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    @Belafon: agreed. I don’t see the angle on this, aside from general shit-stirring in the hope that some sort of opportunity will arise from it.

  17. 17.

    Omnes Omnibus

    May 26, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    @fuckwit: I am not making any predictions. I was just pointing out that it raises more complications than whether a district has a significant population of paperless residents.

    Sometimes things are a bit more complicated than the way Cole presents them.

  18. 18.

    Villago Delenda Est

    May 26, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    The 3/5 rule makes it ABUNDANTLY clear what the Founders intended. It’s raw population, not eligible voters, that is the basis for determining district sizes.

    If “original intent” means ANYTHING at all, there is only one possible ruling here.

  19. 19.

    Valdivia (tablet)

    May 27, 2015 at 12:01 am

    Buenas noches guys y hasta mañana.

  20. 20.

    Omnes Omnibus

    May 27, 2015 at 12:01 am

    @Villago Delenda Est: Dude, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments wiped out the 3/5 rule.

  21. 21.

    Omnes Omnibus

    May 27, 2015 at 12:02 am

    @Valdivia (tablet): Noapte buna.

  22. 22.

    Brachiator

    May 27, 2015 at 12:04 am

    It seems perverse that the court would take this case. I look forward to the “original intent” gyrations that Scalia will dance over this one.

    I presume that districts are based in some way one census numbers and political expediency. But this to me is a real number. “Eligible voters” is more variable. And children and prisoners are still citizens. Even immigrants, who have a stake in their communities and are eligible for government services, have a stake in the outcome of elections.

    I’m just not seeing the hot necessity of the Court getting involved in this.

    But…when would the decision be announced? Sometime in 2016? Hmmm.

  23. 23.

    The Main-Gauche of Mild Reason

    May 27, 2015 at 12:11 am

    I can’t possibly imagine how the supreme court could rule in favor of the plaintiffs, given the fact that rotten boroughs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_and_pocket_boroughs) and virtual representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation) were major issues motivating colonial independence. I mean, anyone with an 8th grade education knows this.

  24. 24.

    xenos

    May 27, 2015 at 12:11 am

    @fuckwit: wouldn’t this have the result of undermining a lot of hard-won GOP voter suppression? i thought the whole idea was to count the underpeople for representation purposes but to limit the vote, legally and practically, to one group. This proposed rule works against that.

    Also, too, the biggest immigrant cities are in places unlikely to swing much. Maybe this is just about a maintaining GOP power in Texas and would not have much of an effect elsewhere.

  25. 25.

    Valdivia

    May 27, 2015 at 12:13 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: toi aussi

  26. 26.

    fuckwit

    May 27, 2015 at 12:13 am

    @Brachiator: I just hope Ms. Clinton has a 50-state, all-district strategy that attempts to mobilize voters in every district regardless of how red or blue it is. As insurance. Because, nobody knows what it’ll actually be after the court rules, probably just before people head to the polls in 2016.

  27. 27.

    burnspbesq

    May 27, 2015 at 12:24 am

    The procedural posture of the case is such that it should limit the damage the Supreme Court can do. What we have is an appeal from the District Court’s granting of the State’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. What that should mean is that the range of possible outcomes is limited to two: either the Supremes kill the case once and for all, or they vacate the district court’s order of dismissal and send it back for discovery and trial.

    That said, there is a potentially loose end. Because the district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, it also “dismissed” (rather than denying) the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Supremes could (at least theoretically) overturn the dismissal for failure to state a claim AND grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, but the standard for summary judgment is sufficiently high (in order to get summary judgment, the moving party is supposed to show that (1) there are no disputed issues of material fact and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law) that it is almost unimaginable that the Supremes would do that.

  28. 28.

    burnspbesq

    May 27, 2015 at 12:27 am

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    If “original intent” means ANYTHING at all, there is only one possible ruling here.

    That’s funny. Based on Scalia’s concurrence in Gonzalez v. Raich, there was only one possible ruling on the Commerce Clause issue in NFIB v. Sibelius, and it’s not the ruling that was actually handed down.

  29. 29.

    KG

    May 27, 2015 at 12:31 am

    I’m honestly amazed that this has made it to the Supremes. The Fourteenth Amendment is pretty straight forward:

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

    If the opinion runs more than 2 pages, something went very, very wrong.

  30. 30.

    burnspbesq

    May 27, 2015 at 12:35 am

    Asshole Fifth Circuit strikes again.

    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf

  31. 31.

    Eric U.

    May 27, 2015 at 12:45 am

    if ex-felons don’t count, then prisoners shouldn’t count either. I live in Pennsyltucky, and there are a ridiculous number of prisons within my congressional district.

  32. 32.

    KG

    May 27, 2015 at 12:45 am

    @KG: one more thing, after doing a bit more research…

    The Supreme Court just a couple of years ago ordered a case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that sought to force Congress to increase the number of House seats, Clemons v. Dept of Commerce. So it’s entirely likely the same result could happen here.

    I just can’t see a way that this case actually results in anything but a “son, don’t be stupid” decision. Especially as burnspbesq points out, procedurally, there’s not much there, there.

  33. 33.

    James E Powell

    May 27, 2015 at 1:05 am

    @KG:

    If the opinion runs more than 2 pages, something went very, very wrong.

    Something did go wrong. In 2000, when the right-wing of the supreme court appointed a president who would be certain to perpetuate their dominance of the court for another generation.’

    We should get used to blatantly political, right-wing decisions that roll back everything decent from the 20th century. It’s Roberts’s mission and Scalia’s reason for living.

    Like Eric Alterman always says, thanks again Ralph (and the clueless morons who voted for you)

  34. 34.

    Mike J

    May 27, 2015 at 1:33 am

    @KG:

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,

    One of the arguments is that the number of undocumented people is estimated, not “counted.” That’s enough of an opening for five votes.

  35. 35.

    sharl

    May 27, 2015 at 1:37 am

    Sweet jeebus.

    Kim Janssen @kimjnews

    Shocking photo CPD didn’t want you to see: 2 white cops holding black man like hunting trophy Chicago Sun-Times 5/26/2015

    Believed to have been taken in a West Side police station between 1999 and 2003, the Polaroid photo was given to the city by the feds in 2013 and resulted in McDermott, a clout-heavy cop, being fired last year by the police board in a 5-to-4 vote. The four dissenters said McDermott should only have been suspended. But a majority of the board wrote that “appearing to treat an African-American man not as a human being but as a hunted animal is disgraceful and shocks the conscience.”

    McDermott, who has been driving a truck to support his family, is now appealing his dismissal in court.

    That photo is every bit as awful as its description notes.

  36. 36.

    Brachiator

    May 27, 2015 at 1:44 am

    @James E Powell: Well, we can’t entirely blame Ralph. Voter turnout was around 50 percent. Had more voted,the outcome might have been harder to steal.

  37. 37.

    Origuy

    May 27, 2015 at 1:50 am

    Several top FIFA officials have been arrested on corruption charges.

  38. 38.

    Mike J

    May 27, 2015 at 2:02 am

    @Origuy: On the one hand, nobody likes the US stepping in and trying to solve everyone else’s problems. On the other hand, nobody is going to be the least bit upset if Sepp Blatter gets waterboarded.

    In other sports news, first club race of the year tonight. Used a 20 year old leaky boat, smoked the two new high tech speedsters the club just bought. It ain’t the boat that wins the race. Mwahahahahaha. (I picked the other end of the line from everyone else and was right, and had a close finish that should have been a gimme if I hadn’t gybed too early.)

  39. 39.

    TriassicSands

    May 27, 2015 at 2:03 am

    Scalia, one of history’s great phonies, will rule in a way that favors the Republican Party. He will concoct some fanciful explanation for why the Constitution compels him to rule that way, but in the end, Scalia is thoroughly corrupt.

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    If “original intent” means ANYTHING at all, there is only one possible ruling here.

    Ah, but “original intent,” like every other excuse Scalia (et al.) uses to justify his votes, doesn’t mean anything — at least, nothing beyond being a concocted justification for Scalia to use to try to secure the political and/or social outcome he wants.

    The only thing that Scalia might have in shorter supply than integrity is shame; though, in reality, both score a solid zero out to several decimal places.

  40. 40.

    Villago Delenda Est

    May 27, 2015 at 2:07 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: Yes, as to counting those persons as 3/5ths of a person is concerned. But it’s clear that they WERE to be included in the numbers. The slaveholders INSISTED on it, because if the number were only to be of “eligible voters”, then they were screwed as far as representation in the House was concerned. That’s why they had a 3/5th rule in the first place.

    Which means, as reiterated in 14th Amendment, that if persons are counted (that is, included in the census) then they’re to be represented.

  41. 41.

    Villago Delenda Est

    May 27, 2015 at 2:08 am

    @TriassicSands: Well, clearly then “ORIGINAL INTENT” means absolutely nothing, and Scalia has all the intellectual honesty of Joseph Goebbles.

  42. 42.

    joel hanes

    May 27, 2015 at 2:12 am

    @Mike J:

    Few things are as much fun as successfully pulling off a port-tack start.

    Especially if the lead starboard-tack boat misses your stern by a matter of inches.

  43. 43.

    craigie

    May 27, 2015 at 2:31 am

    it is almost unimaginable that the Supremes would do that.

    Somehow, that doesn’t make me feel any better.

  44. 44.

    Mary G

    May 27, 2015 at 2:38 am

    This is why I get more and more enthused about Hillary. Say what you will about her, she won’t appoint Supremes that will go for this crap.

  45. 45.

    fuckwit

    May 27, 2015 at 2:43 am

    @Mike J: Nah, but counted is the census. It counts people. And that’s what determines the size of the district.

    Actually, I retract my earlier worry. That 14th Amendment is pretty goddamned clear and unambiguous. I’m still not 100% certain the Roberts SCOTUS will not find a way to turn this to shit, and I’m damn certain that Scalia’s dissent if he loses will be an orange-level butthurt alert, but if that’s what the Constitution says then I’m confused why they agreed to hear this at all. Maybe I should re-read burnspeq’s excellent answer again.

  46. 46.

    Morzer

    May 27, 2015 at 3:02 am

    I suppose it’s possible that Nino’s tarantella on this one will just get faster and faster and faster until he’s dancing it with burning shoes, then burning ankles.. and ultimately there’ll be a small grease-spot formerly known as Injustice Scalia.

  47. 47.

    Mike J

    May 27, 2015 at 3:05 am

    @joel hanes: We did in fact start port tack. I was more concerned about where the wind was than where the other boats were, and we just slid though. I was lucky to grab a good crew. A beginner who had never been out of our protective lagoon and into the middle of the lake, but he actually understood stuff, just needs more tiller time. Since I spent the weekend coaching even newer newbies (who never been in a boat before) it was a refreshing change.

    @fuckwit: I didn’t say the counted v estimated argument made any sense, merely that I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will be on it without even thinking, and getting to five won’t be surprising. The supreme court has very little to do with law, they’re just another political faction.

    I will admit I like reading Scalia’s dissents. The man can turn a phrase when he wants to, and when he’s in dissent it’s usually good for the United States.

  48. 48.

    Chris T.

    May 27, 2015 at 4:25 am

    Clearly they’ll decide that since corporations are people and money is speech, the correct answer is “one dollar is one vote”…

  49. 49.

    Botsplainer

    May 27, 2015 at 5:48 am

    In the movie about this case, I hope Samuel L Jackson plays Clarence Thomas.

    He won’t even have to study for it – he can simply restate his lines from Django.

  50. 50.

    Zinsky

    May 27, 2015 at 6:01 am

    @Chris T.: I fear Chris T. may be right. These sphincters act like democracy is just an annoyance to their narrow-missed, fascist agenda. Very scary.

  51. 51.

    Citizen Alan

    May 27, 2015 at 6:03 am

    @James E Powell:

    Like Eric Alterman always says, thanks again Ralph (and the clueless morons who voted for you)

    Blame Ralph for Iraq if you want, but this ignorant bit of petulance ignores the fact that Roberts and Alito were appointed in Bush’s SECOND term. The one he got after the Democrats insisted on nominating a “war hero” who was then unwilling and/or unable to defend his war record against people willing to call him a lying coward on national TV.

  52. 52.

    raven

    May 27, 2015 at 6:29 am

    @Citizen Alan: He wasn’t unable he was unwilling.

  53. 53.

    Eric S.

    May 27, 2015 at 6:35 am

    I’m not sure that victory will get the plaintiffs what they want. Just thinking about the Chicago area here, a lot of immigrants are in the suburbs that vote predominantly Republican. I think you’d find similar situations in many rural areas with labor intensive food production. I could be wrong but even from a strictly immigration standpoint this may not be quite the unmitigated victory they think it would be.

  54. 54.

    Botsplainer

    May 27, 2015 at 6:38 am

    @Citizen Alan:

    Dude was practically French, and he had a lot of money, which made him an elitist.

  55. 55.

    Botsplainer

    May 27, 2015 at 6:39 am

    @Eric S.:

    Depends on who is doing the counting.

  56. 56.

    satby

    May 27, 2015 at 6:40 am

    @raven: I think Kerry just assumed facts would matter and he would prevail on that. In a sane society, facts would matter, but we live in the USA.

  57. 57.

    JPL

    May 27, 2015 at 6:53 am

    @satby: I think you are correct. Kerry assumed the media would report the facts rather than gossip about him drinking green tea.

  58. 58.

    dmsilev

    May 27, 2015 at 6:53 am

    Speaking of corrupt bastards, apparently DOJ just extradited a whole bunch of FIFA executives on corruption and bribery charges. Swiss police arrested them at a FIFA meeting at some fancy Zurich hotel.

    Got to love the headline the Times used: “FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Sepp Blatter Isn’t Among Them”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/sports/soccer/fifa-officials-arrested-on-corruption-charges-blatter-isnt-among-them.html

  59. 59.

    danielx

    May 27, 2015 at 7:03 am

    Occasionally a scribe/pundit/columnist/Villager blunders and accidentally blurts out the truth. So with today’s WaPo column by Kathleen Parker regarding Bloody Bill Kristol’s new found distaste for baby boomer presidents, in which she notes:

    <blockquote>I don’t usually single out other commentators, but I’m making an exception — not because I’m a woman, or a boomer, or a Hillary Clinton supporter (though Kristol makes me want to be one), but because despite being wrong about most everything, he remains an influential voice in politics.

    Bill Kristol, an-always-wrong-but-never-uncertain, self-loathing, boomer doucherocket? Say it ain’t so….

  60. 60.

    OzarkHillbilly

    May 27, 2015 at 7:24 am

    @danielx: Heh. I especially liked this:

    Kristol lavishly praises the Greatest Generation. Who doesn’t? I liked them, too, but I just called them my parents.

  61. 61.

    Iowa Old Lady

    May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am

    @Villago Delenda Est: For that matter, women were counted.

    But Bush v Gore and Hobby Lobby taught me that anything can happen.

  62. 62.

    raven

    May 27, 2015 at 7:39 am

    @JPL: Kerry made a stupid calculation not to fight from the start.

  63. 63.

    SFAW

    May 27, 2015 at 7:41 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Noapte buna.

    What’s interesting/scary is that, when I saw that, I says to meself “What is that, Romanian?”

    Of which I do not speak a word. It’s like a combination of cluelessness and dead-on accuracy. Maybe I can have a steel-cage match with Jim Hoft to settle things.

    Well, except for the accuracy part. The day he’s accurate about anything is the day my hair grows back, and I become good-looking. So we’re safe.

  64. 64.

    dubo

    May 27, 2015 at 7:43 am

    “The media isn’t falling for our lies about the ‘crisis’ of voter registration fraud anymore”
    “Well what can we do to make voter registration fraud more consequential AND motivate districts to commit astronomical amounts of voter registration fraud?”

  65. 65.

    SFAW

    May 27, 2015 at 7:53 am

    @Citizen Alan:

    Blame Ralph for Iraq if you want, but this ignorant bit of petulance ignores the fact that Roberts and Alito were appointed in Bush’s SECOND term.

    Which would not have happened if he had not “won” a first term, I’m guessing. Or would he have beaten President Gore in a rematch?

    @Botsplainer:

    Dude was practically French, and he had a lot of money, which made him an elitist.

    AND Jooish to boot. How can you trust someone like that?

  66. 66.

    gene108

    May 27, 2015 at 7:58 am

    I normally do not root for injuries, but I wish something happens to one of the right-wing justices and we can flip the balance of the court.

    I just have a sinking feeling Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas are going to live forever, because only the good die young and they are anything but good.

    It’ll probably be the 2024 or 2028 election before any of those three get old enough to step down or bite the big one.

    EDIT: I know Scalia and Kennedy are pushing 80, but given the medical attention they just receive, I do not see them dying or retiring for at least another 10 years.

  67. 67.

    SFAW

    May 27, 2015 at 8:02 am

    @burnspbesq:

    that it is almost unimaginable that the Supremes would do that.

    After seeing how this Court has ruled on various issues, the “unimaginable” is no longer so. And, given Scalia’s apparent disconnect from reality (vis-a-vis his arguments, the “facts” he uses in his votes), I am less than sanguine that justice truly exists with this Court.

  68. 68.

    danielx

    May 27, 2015 at 8:18 am

    @SFAW:

    After seeing how this Court has ruled on various issues, the “unimaginable” is no longer so. And, given Scalia’s apparent disconnect from reality (vis-a-vis his arguments, the “facts” he uses in his votes), I am less than sanguine that justice truly exists with this Court.

    That would be a large fuckin’ yes, given Fat Tony’s blatherings on “police professionalism” and other real world topics of which he knows precisely nothing.

  69. 69.

    rikyrah

    May 27, 2015 at 8:53 am

    I’m gonna put it bluntly:

    THEY WANNA RETURN TO THE DAYS WHEN ONLY WHITE MALE PROPERTY OWNERS VOTED.

    PERIOD.

    They have NEVER been interested in little-d DEMOCRACY.

    NEVER!!!

  70. 70.

    jonp72

    May 27, 2015 at 9:57 am

    I saw Antonin Scalia give a speech at Brown University in the early 1990s when I was an undergrad there. I asked him point blank, face-to-face if he thought Baker vs. Carr was wrongly decided. (Baker vs. Carr was the “one man one vote” case. Scalia offered to give his opinions on cases he thought were wrongly decided.) Scalia told me to my face that he thought Baker vs. Carr was wrongly decided. I doubt he has “evolved” since then. This is not good at all.

  71. 71.

    Tractarian

    May 27, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Entrench sorta rhymes with untermensch!

  72. 72.

    James E Powell

    May 27, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    @fuckwit:

    That 14th Amendment is pretty goddamned clear and unambiguous.

    So is the 15th amendment, but see Shelby County v. Holder.

  73. 73.

    Bill Murray

    May 27, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    @SFAW: Nader was at most the fourth biggest reason Gore lost. Why you want to focus on the ~10,000 votes Nader “cost” Gore rather than the corrupt Supreme Court (infinite number of votes), corrupt state officials (hard to tell but probably 50,000 to 200,000) and corrupt local officials (probably 30,000 votes) and the ~150,000 Democrats that voted for Clinton in 1996 but Bush in 2000 is I guess your business but usually innumeracy and not wanting people to vote for whom they want are reserved for the Republicans.

  74. 74.

    tones

    May 27, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    @Brachiator:
    And the little factoid that Gore actually WON.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by GB in the HC (5/23)

Recent Comments

  • Geminid on Why Raw Story (and other outlets) Make Me Crazy (May 24, 2025 @ 5:19am)
  • Manyakitty on Late Night Open Thread (May 24, 2025 @ 5:13am)
  • Manyakitty on Open Thread: TFG’s Memecoin Dinner Grift Grab (May 24, 2025 @ 4:40am)
  • prostratedragon on Open Thread: TFG’s Memecoin Dinner Grift Grab (May 24, 2025 @ 4:11am)
  • Jay on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 24, 2025 @ 4:07am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!