Antonin Scalia | Jon Stewart | News | Rachel Maddow | Supreme Court

Rachel Maddow Tells Jon Stewart About Her Visit to the Supreme Court, Calls Justice Scalia a 'Troll': VIDEO

Maddow

Rachel Maddow visited the Supreme Court yesterday as the Court was considering the Voting Rights Act, and had lots to say about it.

"I don't have a number line that is long enough, that goes high enough to understand how on the same day we are unveiling the statue of Rosa Parks at the US Capitol and one block away we are considering getting rid of the pillar of American civil rights law, and that happens at the same time in the same place and nobody's head explodes."

"It's weird to see Antonin Scalia in person. It's weird...You can see, actually, he's a troll. He's like the guy on your blog comment thread who's saying the N word."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. There has to be a method to get rid of Scalia and other Judges who are not performing according to their job description. Only in the USA would such a terrible system exist where these morons are in a super high paying job for life making decisions on other people's lives with no way of removing them if they are not performing. Madness !

    The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to be impartial. Scalia has already been shooting his mouth off saying how bad gays are for society and how he is against gay rights. This means he has already made up his mind BEFORE hearing any legal arguments. This means he is NOT impartial and must be removed from his job.
    If a member of a jury is known to have already made up their mind about a case this is called prejudice and they are removed from the jury. It's exactly the same thing with Scalia. He has to be fired. NOW.

    Do we need an online petition to get rid of this evil shi$head ?

    Posted by: Icebloo | Mar 1, 2013 3:24:24 PM


  2. @Icebloo...you're absolutely right. He's actually referred to marriage equality as a
    "no brainer" as far as his decision is concerned. He's quite a grand-stander so it wouldn't surprise me if he's setting himself up to be the latest victim of religious persecution by the gays. Of course that would only help his book sales. Can you imagine how many talk shows he could book if there were a public cry to recuse himself...or even step down? Can you say "conspiracy theory"? That gay agenda schtick again !

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Mar 1, 2013 3:33:11 PM


  3. Actually, the issue before the court is a fairly narrow one, and the law is not at risk of being "thrown out". The issue is about the list of counties that was drawn up in the 1970's as being so discriminatory they need federal supervision. That is, they're new voting laws or changes to existing laws (and laws that affect residency, etc.) must be approved by federal regulators before they take effect. Note that only the counties on the official list (now about 40 years old) are affected by this regulation. In other counties, a person would have to sue under the voting rights act in federal court to get an injunction against a new law or changes to an existing law.

    The issue is now whether the county list is still a valid remedy, or whether other clauses of the constitution take precedence. That's it. While Scalia probably would like to throw out the entire voting rights act, that's not going to happen in this case.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 1, 2013 3:45:28 PM


  4. "Rachel was raised Catholic"

    Whatever. If her father's father was a Jew, then her father was culturally a Jew....and obviously she saw her father as her role model rather than her mother (LOL).

    Posted by: Rick | Mar 1, 2013 6:16:49 PM


  5. Icebloo - Scalia is, as Rachel Maddow has said, a "troll" who likes to say bad things to get a reaction. But unless he dies, the only removal is by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Unlikely to happen, but it's the only way to "fire" a federal judge.

    Also, bear in mind, there are likely many other S. Ct. judges who already know they are going to vote in FAVOR of equal marriage in theses cases,(even if they don't say it out loud.) It's not like these people are unaware of the facts and law in big cases that have been floating around for years before they get to them. Also they aren't jurors (who decide facts and need to hear evidence) - at the S.Ct. level the justices confine their analysis decisions to issues of law. It's unlikely that any one of the briefs filed is going to raise some issue these people aren't already very familiar with. In most S.Ct. cases you are aiming at one or two justices "in the middle" whose votes will be the ones to make a difference.

    Frankly, I'd rather have judges for life than have them elected by people every few years. How long do you think Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Sandra Sotomayor would last if they were subject to being voted on in this stupid country? Whereas narrow-minded men like Scalia would keep being re-elected.

    It may sound like a dumb system, until you compare it to the alternatives.

    Posted by: Buster | Mar 1, 2013 6:21:04 PM


  6. Rachel looks like a defrocked nun in a men's sport coat. Why do gay women love to wear men's suit coats? Start noticing. There could be money in that...

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 1, 2013 6:21:17 PM


  7. Rick -

    Hate to respond to your trolling but -

    (1) Being Jewish (or not)doesn't preclude understanding the South.

    (2) Being from the West or Northeast doesn't preclude understanding the South.

    (3) Being a reasonably intelligent high school student doesn't preclude understanding the South. Frankly, the South's issues and history as they pertain to racial relations and voting over the last, say, 75 years, just aren't all that tricky or complex.

    (4) In fact, based upon your posts, the only folks who seem to get all righteous and confused when discussing Southern politics appear to be reactionary Southern trolls, like you. Maybe you should spend less time misreading Maddow's biographies on the Internet and more time reading about the history of racial issues in the South.

    (5) I'm comfortable believing that Rachel Maddow has a good handle on Southern politics based on the fact that:

    (a) she holds a B.A. in Public Policy from Stanford

    (b) as a Rhodes Scholar she earned a Ph.D in Politics from Oxford University.

    (c) she has been a notably well-informed political commentator on television for the last eight years, with a reputation for accuracy and openness to those who views she disagrees.

    (c) her interviews and discussions evidence her strong delight in, and support for, true partisan dialectic in the discussion of public political issues.

    You, on the other hand, sound like a moron religious bigot. Perhaps you're not. Perhaps you just have difficulty expressing yourself accurately in writing. Either way, I'm pretty comfortable with Rachel's thoughts over yours.

    Posted by: Buster | Mar 1, 2013 6:52:19 PM


  8. Buster, it may be too soon to ask this, but will you marry me? ;)

    Posted by: RyanInWyo | Mar 1, 2013 8:15:06 PM


  9. The proposal is fun, but have any of you considered the reality of marriage? By the time you figure that out, the reality of divorce will need to be addressed.

    Posted by: Jake | Mar 1, 2013 8:30:59 PM


  10. Rick, it doesn't matter that her grandfather was Jewish. It's if her grandmother and mother were Jewish that would make her Jewish. She has Jewish blood in her background -- hell, I have a great-great grandmother who was Jewish but I'm red-haired, blue eyed, freckled and as Presbyterian as she is Catholic. Your deliberate ignorance is almost as appalling as your anti-Semitism. Go troll elsewhere, worm.

    Posted by: Kyle Michel Sullivan | Mar 1, 2013 8:47:55 PM


  11. icebloo -

    Are you capable of being impartial and objective in your professional capacity regardless of your opinions? I am. I do it every day.

    Scalia hasn't hidden his feelings about gay people or his religious affiliations with the Vatican and papists. He also also been candid on his assessment of gay marriage: He said that the ruling in Lawrence meant that the court would have to clear the way for gay marriage. Did you know that?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Mar 1, 2013 9:18:44 PM


  12. let's not be too impressed by Maddow's education. I would like to remind you that the man who started the whole "… if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”" was an MD. The congressman who said that Terry Schiavo was aware and functioning was an MD. These are not simple opinions.

    Rachel has shown her contempt for the Constitution and the law, as well as outright stupidity when it comes to the impact of unbridled immigration. Her advanced degrees don't make her smarter, just more credentialed.

    Posted by: David Hearne | Mar 1, 2013 9:26:04 PM


  13. Just a minor detail...
    Someone thinks Stanford and Oxford are women's colleges in Massachusetts. That's after reading Maddow's bio. That's the level of discussion on this thread:(

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Mar 1, 2013 9:36:49 PM


  14. "After all, a troll is just someone with a contrary nature who likes to stir up debate in order to draw attention to themselves."

    You do know we have a "resident troll" here, right?
    I ignore "it" the majority of the times, thanks to the page down key.
    But yeah, it's all about getting attention.

    Posted by: FunMe | Mar 2, 2013 12:42:56 AM


  15. Love Rchel. She is one of the best and the brightest. I don't think that there is a keener mind reporting on the current scene in the world today.

    Posted by: andrew | Mar 2, 2013 1:10:54 AM


  16. Thx RyaninWyo, but I'm afraid I've already got a husband. But it's sweet of you to ask and I'll put you on the backup list in the unlikely case I have an opening. :-)

    Posted by: Buster | Mar 2, 2013 3:03:47 AM


  17. Some fool named "Rick" posted:

    "Why in the world would a lesbian who was raised and educated in California, attended an all-female college in Massachusetts...."

    Dr. Maddow graduated from Stanford University (a private co-ed institution in her home state of California) and studied for her doctorate at Oxford University (a co-ed institution in England). AFAIK, she has never attended "an all female college."

    I think "Rick" might want to consider being correct once in a while -- it would help his credibility considerably.

    Posted by: Bruce Morgen | Mar 2, 2013 12:27:44 PM


  18. @ Rick,

    Rachel Maddow is only one-quarter Jewish (paternal grandfather), and you have serious mental problems. You're obsessed with both Jews and the northeastern United States being the source of all evil. Go back to the trailer park in Two Rivers, Alabama. I hear there are some excellent "aluminum brightener" products that can help with the aluminum siding on mobile homes.

    Posted by: Artie_in_Lauderdale | Mar 2, 2013 1:12:50 PM


  19. Rick and (his aliases) is the only male commenter that suffers from Penis Envy.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Mar 2, 2013 2:33:56 PM


  20. Reported today: Rachel Maddow Busted Using Multiple Fake Twitter Accounts To Boost Mentions Of Her Show. (3/2 Drudge) What's behind that Rachel?

    Posted by: Jake | Mar 2, 2013 3:53:32 PM



  21. Judges, justices and magistrates are required (or encouraged) under federal law to disqualify themselves from any case in which they may have a conflict of interest. Under 28 USC § 455:

    "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

    The law cites such issues as personal bias or prejudice, personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, cases in which the judge has previously served as an attorney, advisor, or witness for any of the parties, cases in which the judge has a significant financial interest in the outcome, personal relationships with parties to a case, etc.

    On 21 January, I posted a comment about that great day. Here's an excerpt, from that comment, that is in-line with Rachel Maddow; wow, am I in good company, or what!

    We have a Justice of the Supreme Court saying that being gay is as immoral as murder; well, thank you Father Scalia! So, is it really that much of a stretch to believe that Justice Scalia uses the same logic in equating the criminal intent of murder with that of homosexuality. Using the word logic in the same sentence as Scalia (Right!); now, insane and Scalia in the same sentence, well, that works.

    When a Supreme Court Justice shows himself to be so totally biased, we (as in “We the People….”), should be able to stop him from abusing his power; it’s the Supreme Court, not a Supreme Being! Scalia has proven himself to be incapable of being impartial on the issue of same sex marriage, a subject that is so important to the spirit of the Constitution; if you don’t believe that the 9th Amendment covers this, then it is time (no, past time) to make it clear and put it in writing.

    In 1920, we had to add an Amendment in order to protect a woman’s right to vote ( #19); really, like that should have ever been in question, it took us that long to acknowledge this right. Oh, it gets better, in 1972, when a Bill was written to better define equal rights, well… that kind of stalled and it is still pending; still pending, for over forty years and it is not the only one pending, WTFO! Holy crap, if the Founding Fathers could see us now! You know what, forget about what I said, just go back to watching Fox News and kiss the rest of your brain cells goodbye; hopefully the people who take this path will be a minority, “The New Fringe”!

    Posted by: Russell Booth | Mar 3, 2013 10:16:05 AM


  22. @David Hearne

    Yes the Supervisor of Elections in Miami-Dade County is black. BUT, the reason we had the long lines is due to issues with our white republican governor and republican led legislature.

    Posted by: don't a tell la | Mar 3, 2013 6:21:44 PM


  23. @ DON'T A TELL LA

    "long lines is due to issues with our white republican governor and republican led legislature."

    Then why weren't there lines in all counties?

    Posted by: David Hearne | Mar 3, 2013 8:50:44 PM


  24. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Gavin Newsom Talks to Jimmy Kimmel About Obama's Prop 8 SCOTUS Brief: VIDEO« «