DOWNLOADS: (207)

PLAYS: (1410)

Embed

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart had a field day with the opponents of gay marriage at this week's Supreme Court hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, starting with Paul Clement, the lawyer hired by House Republicans, who was called out by Justice Elena Kagan when he attempted to make the claim that the law wasn't based on bigotry.

After playing some of the back and forth between Clement and Kagan, Stewart gave the audience a reminder of just what the House Republicans sounded like back in 1996, before playing the audio of Kagan reading from the actual House report which said "Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." As Stewart noted, "with moral arguments no longer available to opponents of same-sex marriage, what's left for the conservatives to argue?"

Cue the idiocy of Justice Scalia, who made this ridiculous claim:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don’t know why you don’t mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s – there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

As Stewart rightfully noted in the segment, no, there's not.

And then there was Justica Alito's equally ridiculous remark that the issue of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones or the Internet."

STEWART: No, we want you to step in and render a decision based on whether it's right, fair and just under the Constitution, having nothing to do with its "newness" and what you think might happen. Which by the way, what do you think might happen? That they'll discover letting two ladies get married is going to rip open a hole in the ozone layer? And I've got news for you. Gay marriage will definitely cause less national harm than cell phones or the Internet.

But here's the thing that we're pretty sure you don't have to do. You don't have to beta test rights. Black people have only been here fifty years. I mean, let's see how the Netherlands does with them before we lift some barriers.

Stewart did have one hope that the justices might be moved by one thing though, and that's the "mother f**king injustice" of Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the case, being forced to pay estate taxes and their concern "about the heartbreak, that is double taxation."

DOWNLOADS: (146)

PLAYS: (641)

Embed

Rush Limbaugh says that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should be "honored" to be compared to be compared to him over the justice's recent suggestion that voting rights were a "racial entitlement."

During oral arguments about the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act last week, Scalia had pointed out that the law had enjoyed multiple nearly-unanimous reauthorizations because lawmakers were scared to be seen voting against discrimination, calling it “a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

Several media outlets -- like Mother Jones and Salon -- noted that Scalia's argument was not unlike something that would have been expected from Limbaugh. And MSNBC's Al Sharpton observed that the Supreme Court justice had a history of taking cues from Fox News and conservative radio hosts.

On Monday, Limbaugh declared that he would be "honored" to be compared to himself and so Scalia should be too.

"Imagine that!" Limbaugh exclaimed. "Arguably one of the most well-endowed intellects in court's history, Antonin Scalia, was accused of sounding like me. And I'm sure it's a big day for him too!"

"This is one of those things that goes both ways. I know if I were Antonin Scalia, I would be honored. Just like I am honored to be compared to him."

(h/t: Media Matters)

DOWNLOADS: (202)

PLAYS: (1834)

Embed

MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry had a few words for old Fat Tony after the remarks he made during this week's Supreme Court hearing on the Voting Rights Act -- Voting is no ‘racial entitlement,’ Justice Scalia:

Dear Justice Scalia,

It’s me, Melissa.

By now, we know you well enough that there’s not much you can say or do that would come as a surprise. We can set our watches by your decisions that, predictably, will be in alignment with the Court’s most radically conservative reasoning. We know that unlike your friend Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a permanent mute button on, you will always voice an opinion, and it will be heavily influenced by your political agenda..

But even given all of that, what you had to say during Wednesday’s oral arguments still came as a genuine shock.

Commenting on Congress’s nearly unanimous re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006, you said, “I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

You went on to say, “I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity…unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution…It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”

Racial entitlement? Not a question you can leave to Congress? Even for you, Justice Scalia, this is a particularly willful misreading of the Constitution you claim to adore.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (349)

PLAYS: (4410)

Embed

On Thursday night's The Daily Show, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow had this to say about going to the Supreme Court in person to see how it functions. Maddow heaped scorn on the justice after he characterized part of the "Voting Rights Act" as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement".

Transcript via Fox News

JON STEWART, HOST: Does he, you know, I only read some of the transcripts of what he was saying. And he was saying certain thing like, “We've got to get rid of this because it's one of the last vestiges of racial preferences,” the Voting Rights Act I guess.

MADDOW: He said that, he said when Congress re-upped the Voting Rights Act, they looked into whether or not it was still necessary. Ten months of debate, 21 hearings, 15,000 pages of evidence, and in the Senate they voted 98-0 yeah we still need that. But he said, “That vote really, what does that vote mean?”

STEWART: Didn’t he say something like, “We told them to fix this in 2006 but clearly they won’t or can't, so we have to do it for them?”

MADDOW: Because it’s not, it’s not a real vote. It’s a racial entitlement now. Voting is a racial entitlement, something that you are entitled to on the basis of your race.

Wait a second. Do you know how that sounds?

But I think he does know how that sounds, and that's the neat thing about being there in person because you can see oh, actually, he's a troll. He’s saying this for effect.

Naturally, this affront forced Fox News host Megyn Kelly to breathlessly rush to Scalia's defense, saying she personally objects to "that kind of language against the Supreme Court justice."

"I don't think it does anybody any good," Kelly said. "I think they vote their consciences up there whether they're left or right." (via TPM). Tellingly, she wouldn't mention Rachel Maddow by name, referring to her only as "a liberal commentator". (And no she didn't use the word "biotch", though you know she was thinking it.)

DOWNLOADS: (203)

PLAYS: (2567)

Embed

Full transcript of Maddow below, along with a recording of Justice Scalia's remarks in court to the Solicitor General.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (122)

PLAYS: (968)

Embed

National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre on Sunday argued that banning assault weapons limited the 'ability to survive' and that high-capacity magazines should not be outlawed because women need more bullets.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace pointed out to LaPierre that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had written that the right to bear arms described by the Second Amendment "was not unlimited."

The NRA chief countered that no new laws were necessary because "we already have all kinds of reasonable laws."

"The most basic right is to protect yourself," he asserted. "If you limit the American public's access to [assault weapons] semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive."

"If someone's invading your house, you shouldn't say you only have five or six shots, you ought to have what you need to protect yourself, a woman should," LaPierre added. "Not what some politician thinks is reasonable."

Wallace also asked if the NRA regretted creating an advertisement that attacked the president because his daughters were protected by armed guards.

"It wasn't picking on the president's kids," LaPierre insisted. "The president's kids are safe, and we're all thankful for for it."

"Do you really think the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in America?" Wallace pressed. "I think it's ridiculous and you know it, sir."

"I think there are parents all over the country that think their kids are entitled to the same amount of protection when they go to school," LaPierre declared. "It's ridiculous, Chris, for all the elites, for all that powerful and privileged and the titans industry to send their kids to schools where there's armed security, to have access to semi-automatic technology, to have access to [high-capacity] magazines..."

"My children went to the same school that the Obama children went to many years ago, there were no armed security there," Wallace interrupted. "This idea of an elite class is just nonsense, sir."

"Capitol Hill right now, they're all protected by armed security with high-cap magazines, while they sit there and try to limit the average citizen to ten because they think that's reasonable in their opinion," LaPierre replied.

DOWNLOADS: (497)

PLAYS: (6339)

Embed

With the Supreme Court agreeing to take up the issue of gay marriage in their next term, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart reminded his viewers just what we're up against in the coming years no matter how the court ends up ruling on the cases.

He took some shots at Lindsey Graham, who when appearing with his "two amigos," Droopy Dog Lieberman and Grandpa McGrumpy on Piers Morgan's show earlier this week, compared gay marriage to polygamy. And then there's Antonin Scalia, who left little doubt about how he's going to rule, when he compared homosexuality to murder.

DOWNLOADS: (213)

PLAYS: (1558)

Embed

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says that the pivotal decision which reversed a law that prohibited women from using contraception is not supported under his interpretation of the Constitution.

During an interview on Sunday, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Scalia why he believed that it is a "lie" that women have a Constitutional right to abortion.

"Nobody ever thought that the America people voted to prohibit limitations on abortions," the 76-year-old conservative justice explained. "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that."

"What about the right to privacy that the court found in 1965?" Wallace pressed.

"There's no right to privacy in the Constitution -- no generalized right to privacy," Scalia insisted.

"Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was," Wallace pointed out.

"Yeah, it did," Scalia agreed. "And that was wrong."

Under the principle of originalism, the Constitution "simple doesn't cover" abortion," he added. "Which means it's left to -- it's left to democratic choice as most things are, even important things like abortion."

In its 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, the court found that Connecticut could not prohibit the use of contraception because people have a "right to marital privacy."

DOWNLOADS: (296)

PLAYS: (2367)

Embed

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said that even "handheld rocket launchers" could be considered legal under his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

In the wake of a massacre in Colorado that left 12 dead and 58 wounded, host Chris Wallace asked Scalia if the Constitution would support assault-type AR-15 rifles and 100-round clips.

The justice explained that under his principle of originalism, some limitations on weapons were possible. Fox example, laws to restrict people from carrying a "head axe" would be constitutional because it was a misdemeanor when the Constitution was adopted in the late 1700s.

"What about these technological limitations?" Wallace wondered. "Obviously, we're not now talking about a handgun or a musket, we're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute."

"We'll see," Scalia replied. "Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be carried. It's to 'keep and bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons."

"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to -- it's will have to be decided," he added.

DOWNLOADS: 129

PLAYS: 856

Embed

A well-respected judge who was appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Ronald Reagan says that he has become less conservative because of "crackpots" and "lunatics" in the Republican Party.

In an interview with NPR on Thursday Judge Richard Posner said that "right-wingers" were making a serious mistake by attacking Chief Justice John Roberts for siding with liberals and upholding President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

"Because if you put [yourself] in his position, what's he supposed to think?" Posner wondered. "That he finds his allies to be a bunch of crackpots? Does that help the conservative movement? I mean, what would you do if you were Roberts? All the sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press."

"What do you do? Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, 'What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?' Right? Maybe you have to re-examine your position."

He added: "I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy."

(h/t: Think Progress)

DOWNLOADS: (382)

PLAYS: (2628)

Embed

Chris Hayes took a shot at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for where he apparently gets his news and for his hypocrisy with basing his rulings on partisan ideology and whether he likes a particular law or not when it comes to his opinion on interstate commerce.

HAYES: We now know that many of the conservative Justices appear to be getting their information from reading right wing blogs. We know Justice Scalia even referenced the infamous “Cornhusker kickback”, a bete noire of Michelle Malkin and Red State, even though the deal cut with Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson to secure his vote for the ACA, didn't end up in the final legislation.

Most importantly we were reminded that just seven years ago, while voting to uphold a federal law that outlawed marijuana grown for private medicinal consumption, Justice Scalia thought the Constitution's interstate Commerce Clause was so broad that Congress could regulate even non-economic interstate activities, so long as failure to do so could undercut its regulation of interstate commerce.

I just assumed it was from watching Fox, but maybe Chris Hayes is correct as well.