http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/scalia-arizona-voting-rights.php?ref=fpa
it's bad enough to be cheated out of fair and honest elections but for it to be sanctioned and upheld by half of the high court tends to put a damper on the country's claim of justice for all doesn't it?
is this ethical are SCOTUS'S suppose to give actionary advice that is obviously biased? can this be the straw that breaks the lifetime appt. crap? they are suppose to interpret the law not act as attorneys giving pro bono advice to those that the Justice obviously sides with.
Arizona and Kansas have taken Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s suggestion and sued the Obama administration in a continuing effort by both states to require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, was announced by Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne and Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and joined by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a high-profile architect of restrictionist laws, including Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070.
The issue involves the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, also known as the “motor voter” law, which requires states to let people register to vote simply by attesting they are citizens, when renewing their driver’s license or applying for social services. A 2004 law adopted by the voters in Arizona added the requirement that people registering to vote also provide proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court struck down that law earlier this year, concluding that it is trumped by the motor voter law. Arizona, the court ruled, could not add new requirements to the form prescribed by the federal law.But during oral arguments in March, Scalia expressed his bafflement that Arizona did not launch a broader assault on the constitutionality of the NVRA form, written by the Election Assistance Commission. The state simply contended in that case that its proof of citizenship law did not violate the federal law. Even Scalia disagreed with that, voting against Arizona in the ruling, but also giving them a valuable tip in his 7-2 majority opinion.
is that not or gives the suggestion of malfeasance? IMO it's creating new parimeters for the court to not do it's job but give their party the nod an a wink? the laws that govern the SCOTUS no doubt need to be pulled out hug over a line an beaten till all the dirt falls out. we are not being represented we are being imposed upon by the Supreme Court.
