Drawing No. 2090 — Bigfoot Holiday

by Jack Brummet

---o0o---

No. 2089 — Sasquatch Supremes

by Jack Brummet

---o0o---

The Supremes toss out Section 4B of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (illustrations: the Louisiana Literacy test)

By Jack Brummet, Jurisprudence Ed.

In a split decision last week, the Supremes tossed out Section 4(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  One key section of the Act mandated that nine states with a history of racial discrimination were required to get federal permission before they could change their voter laws.

Below is an actual “literacy test” given to black voters by the state of Louisiana in the 1960s.  The Voting Rights Act eliminated both poll taxes and literacy tests. You had to take this test if you could not document that you had  passed fifth grade. 

The test had to be completed in 10 minutes, and one wrong answer meant a failing grade. You may notice some of the typos in the test, along with some fairly murky instructions.  Remembering that missing one question would disqualify you from voting, you have to wonder how many voters of any color would pass the test?

---o0o---

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia crosses yet another line, or, Has dementia finally put its death-grip on Scalia?

By Jack Brummet
Jurisprudence Editor
(Illustrations, Jack Brummet)

[Ed's note/sidebar]: I didn't get around to writing about this, but I actually felt bad for Representative Bachmann when she performed her "tea party rebuttal."   She was focused on her crappy web-cam, while the network's heavy camera were off to her side.  She ended up looking like a goofball, and never looked into the camera of the national feed.  Conan, Huffington, and many others, of course, made hay on this.  OK, I didn't feel that bad for her...]

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently drove up to the Capitol to lead a little seminar about the Constitution for the members of Congress, under the auspices of Tea Party caucus chair Michele Bachmann.  Justice Scalia's stint in Congresswoman Bachmann's Constitution prep school has triggered all sorts of backwash and blowback about exactly just what is the proper relationship between the Supreme Court and the rumpled wardheelers and corporate shills we call our political leaders. But as many have said, and written, the crux of the biscuit here is not about ethics, but about the twisted and warped view of the Constitution that Scalia and the Tea Party are promulgating

Jonathan Turley wrote in the Washington Post this weekend, that while Supreme Court Justices across the ideological spectrum have taken on increasingly prominent public roles, Scalia has become a "celebrity justice" by throwing in with the pinheads of the Tea Party and the far right bleeding edge of the GOP.

I don't have anything against God, or The Bible.  Quite the contrary.  And while neither of them are actually mentioned in The Constitution, you wouldn't know that from listening to either the Tea Party or Justice Scalia. 

While both Scalia and the TP talk about strictly interpreting the constitution, the Tea Party has more than once floated the idea of repealing the 16th Amendment (re: federal income taxation), the 17th Amendment (re: direct popular election of U.S. Senators), and even parts of the 14th Amendment.  And yeah, a couple of other amendments too.  Sooner or later, they will also get around to chucking the first amendment. 

These Scalia-Bachmann Con Law classes are not an introduction to the Constitution as much as a blueprint for reinterpreting the Constitution. My fellow editor, Pablo Fanque, called it "tweaking and editing the constitution to bring it into closer conformance with Mein Kampf."

Scalia has often said that the equal protection clause (e.g., the 14th amendment), originally meant to ensure black Americans the full rights of citizenship, was never intended to ensure equal rights for women or gay people.   But then, according to the Huffington Post, "he departed completely from the original intent of the amendment, using it as a justification for halting the 2000 recount in Florida and handing the presidency to George W. Bush."

And needless to say, both Scalia, and his lapdog Clarence Thomas, have hinted that they are more than willing to consider overturning the health care reform law. As always, they believe the rights of corporations supersede those of individual citizens--a bizarre reading of our founders' intent, and quite possibly, the opening volley in what may come to be known as the American Revolution II.
---o0o---

The Supremes Chisel Away At Miranda Protection

By Pablo Fanque
National Affairs Editor



Voting along predictable lines, a five-knucklehead majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has voted to further water down the Miranda Rights of suspects. 


“The right to remain silent” actually--now--requires you to speak.  The Supremes ruled 5-4 today that criminal suspects must explicitly tell police interrogators they wish to remain silent in order to receive Miranda protections. 

Writing the dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the decision “turns Miranda upside down . . . suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”

Is Solicitor General/Supreme Court Associate Justice Nominee Gay? a) "Who cares?" and b) "Cool. It's about time."

By Jack Brummet & Pablo Fanque
Social Mores Editor & National Affairs Editor

Politico.com and various other sites have been debating and reporting on whether or not Elena Kagan in gay.  Our first reaction is "who cares?"  And, second, is "cool..  It's about time."   But if she is a lesbian, she will not be the first homosexual to sit on the bench, at least if you believe at all in probability and statistics.  Those statistics seems to say that around 10% of people are gay.  Therefore, The Supremes have likely had at least ten gay justices.  The issue then becomes sort of a snoozer, whichever way it turns out future Justice Kagan swings. 

From Politico.com:  "[Sarah] Walzer, half amused and half appalled to be discussing her friend’s sexual orientation, agreed to be interviewed after Kagan’s supporters decided they should tactfully put an end to the rumor, which White House officials had already tried to squelch in background interviews with reporters. She said she decided to talk to POLITICO because the discussion of Kagan’s personal life has become a 'distraction.' ”

As usual, none of the mainstream media are not really touching the story (and I admire them for that).  But then the mainstream media becomes less of a factor in all of this almost day by day.  There are probably kids being born tonight who will never hold a newspaper in their hands.

---o0o---