Why The 2016 Election Matters - Supreme Court Edition

This:

The Supreme Court has thwarted President Barack Obama’s drive to expand his executive actions on immigration by making as many as five million immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally eligible for quasi-legal status and work permits. 

By dividing 4-4, the justices left in place a lower court order forbidding the president from launching a new program to grant “deferred action” status to illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders.

So, the four Republicans on the Court were able to thwart President Obama's humane action to allow special status for undocumented alien parents of children who are citizens.  How white nice of them.  You can add this to the long list of anti- democratic rulings by the Republican Roberts Court.

If the President's highly qualified nominee to the Court had been treated fairly and confirmed by party- before- country Republican nihilists, is there any doubt the President's action would have been upheld?  Can there be any question why it is so important -- if only for this reason -- to have a President and Senate who will fill the vacancy on the Court with a progressive with humane values rather than a bigoted, small- bore reactionary Republican?

Elections matter.

BONUS:  Once again, our go- to guy Charles Pierce --

Tell me again how this upcoming election doesn't matter. Tell me again how there's no real difference between the two major candidates. Tell me again why you would risk having a vulgar talking yam appoint the tie-breaking justice, and likely at least two others besides. Tell me again why you're voting for Gary Johnson or Jill freaking Stein. Then tell the four million people whose lives just got tossed into the MixMaster.

I'll hold your coat, and call the ambulance when they're done with you.

BONUS II:  Here's the text of the President's remarks on this decision and on the affirmative action ruling.

It's Why We Call Them Rethuglicans - Supreme Court Edition

From today's oral arguments in Shelby County (Alabama) v.  Holder, which will decide whether the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is upheld or struck down in part or in full, we have this from the smug reptilian Rethuglican "Justice" Antonin Scalia regarding why the VRA's reauthorization has been passed by increasingly larger votes in the Senate each time it comes up:

"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes...[snip]

"Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"

Even the attorney representing Shelby County wouldn't agree with Scalia that the VRA was a "perpetuation of racial entitlement."  But judging from the questions the five activist right-wing Rethuglican justices posed at the orals today, the VRA is hanging by a thread. Should it be struck down, it will be open season for Rethuglican legislatures in the South and elsewhere to proceed with their plans to disenfranchise as many minority voters as they can before the next election, through bogus voter i.d. and onerous voter registration laws.

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.ruRvAtZF.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

Sotomayor Confirmed; Rethugs Weep

Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be the next Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senate voted to confirm Judge Sotomayor today by a vote of 68 to 31, with only 9 Rethuglicans joining the Democratic majority. She will be sworn in shortly. May she have a long and distinguished term.

Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court will be getting a highly qualified and experienced jurist in Judge Sotomayor, the Rethuglicans' clumsy and transparent focus on ethnicity/race issues before and during the hearings will certainly hurt them with Hispanic voters, perhaps for a generation. Ah yes, a win-win of potentially epic proportions.

BONUS: As a well-deserved finger in the eye for Senate Rethugs, Sen. Al Franken, much reviled on the far right, was presiding over the Senate during the roll call vote and announced the results. SWEEEEET!

A Supreme Choice

Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated by President Obama to replace retiring Justice David Souter. When confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would be the only Justice with trial judge experience, the Justice with the most experience as a judge, and the first Hispanic woman ever on the highest court. She was appointed to the U.S. District Court bench by President George H.W. Bush, and has served on the Court of Appeals for 11 years. Her modest beginnings in the South Bronx, her scholarship to Princeton, where she finished at the top of her class, and her graduation from Yale Law are an inspiring story of courage and hard work.

Unfortunately, in today's political climate, it's no longer enough to debate a nominee's judicial record. We can expect ads on TV and radio twisting and distorting Sotomayor's record, with the talking, empty heads in the media promoting every false story without checking. In fact, right wing groups already ran preemptive ads that depicted Sotomayor, Judge Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Ellen Kagan as far out of the mainstream, they just didn't know which person would get Obama's nod. He picked a judge that has all the potential to be a great Justice.