Fun and Games with Scalia and Roberts


There were two moments that purported to be moments of enlightenment in the case argued in late February 2013 in the United States Supreme Court.  One was an iteration of a clever legal theory and the other a little known and incorrect fact.  The legal theory was offered by Justice Scalia and the little known incorrect fact by Chief Justice Roberts.  The moments of enlightenment, if that they were, came during the oral arguments that the Court heard pertaining to the need for the continuation of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  That is the section of the Act designed to protect voting rights of minorities in jurisdictions where those rights were historically abridged by white officials.  The question before the Court was whether the need to protect the rights of minorities to vote still existed, given the open arms that all states now extend to voters of all colors and races.  (In 2012 a few states including, but not limited to Florida and Pennsylvania actually tried to make it harder for people to vote but they did it with the best of intentions. They were trying to prevent voter fraud that had not yet been detected but officials thought might be some day.)

Commenting on the fact that Congress had overwhelmingly reapproved section 5 of the Voting Rights Act when most recently called upon to do so, Justice Scalia explained that was not because members of Congress believed in the merits of the legislation but because they were intimidated by the phenomenon  that he called “the perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He  said that the only way the country can be protected from racial entitlements is if he and his colleagues on the Court say they are unconstitutional.  That is because, says Justice Scalia, members of Congress are very reluctant to be seen as withholding  support for a popular statute such as the Voting Rights Act that protects the voting rights of citizens. When it comes to balancing states’ rights with individual rights, Justice Scalia prefers states’ rights even if it may mean the occasional disenfranchisement or dilution of a voter’s rights. As he said during argument:  “ You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.”  Protecting the right of a citizen to vote is not such a reason.

Chief Justice Roberts did not have to rely on the Scalia “cowardly Congress” theory to show why Section 5 was no longer important.  During the oral argument the Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General of the United States who was arguing in favor of upholding Section 5, if he knew which state had “the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout.”  The Solicitor General, unprepared for such a question, confessed ignorance.  Later, Justice Roberts  asked the Solicitor General if he knew which state had the greatest disparity in registration and again the Solicitor General replied negatively.  Justice Roberts provided the answer to both questions.   He said it was Massachusetts. The answer the Chief Justice gave was wrong.

According to Massachusetts Secretary of State, William Galvin, Massachusetts has one of the highest voter registrations in the country.  A report in the Boston Globe disclosed that, irrespective of whether a neighborhood was predominantly white or predominantly black, the turnout of voters was almost the same.  In a predominately white neighborhood voter turnout was 68 percent and in the heart of Boston’s African-American community the turnout was 64 percent.  Commenting on the Chief’s statements, Mr. Galvin opined:  “I guess the point [Roberts] is trying to make is Mississippi is doing so much better they don’t need the Voting Rights Act. . . . [H]e shouldn’t be using phony statistics.  It’s deceptive, and it’s truly disturbing.”  (Mississippi made news in 1995 when it got around to ratifying the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bans slavery.  Due to a clerical oversight the ratification only became official February 7, 2013. )

When a reporter called the Supreme Court to obtain evidence of the truth of the Chief Justice’s statement about Massachusetts, the spokeswoman for the Court referred the caller to the court transcript of the proceedings in which the statement was made.  In the lofty heights of the U.S. Supreme Court,  the ultimate authority for a false statement of fact made by a member of the Court is the false statement of fact found in the transcript of the proceedings.

The outcome of the argument is almost a foregone conclusion.  The only suspense is in waiting to find out if Massachusetts continues to be used to justify the ruling and whether the Court applies the Scalia Cowardly Congress theory to justify its ruling.  One thing seems certain-Scalia and Roberts will be the winners.  The voters will be the losers.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney based in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

October 08, 2015
Michael Horton
Why is the US Aiding and Enabling Saudi Arabia’s Genocidal War in Yemen?
Ben Debney
Guns, Trump and Mental Illness
Pepe Escobar
The NATO-Russia Face Off in Syria
Yoav Litvin
Israeli Occupation for Dummies
Lawrence Davidson
Deep Poverty in America: the On-Going Tradition of Not Caring
Thomas Knapp
War Party’s New Line: Vladimir Putin is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things
Brandon Jordan
Sowing the Seeds of War in Uruguay
Binoy Kampmark
Imperilled by Unfree Trade: the TPP on Environment and Labor
John McMurtry
The Canadian Elections: Cover-Up and Steal (Again)
Anthony Papa
Coming Home: an Open Letter to 6,000 Soon-to-be-Released Drug War Prisoners From an Ex-Con
Ramzy Baroud
Listen to Syrians: The Media Jackals and the People’s Narrative
Norman Pollack
Heart of Darkness: A Two-Way Street
Gilbert Mercier
Will Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite Militias Defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
John Stanton
Vietnam 2.0 and California Dreamin’ in Ukraine
William John Cox
The Pornography of Hatred
October 07, 2015
Nancy Scheper-Hughes
Witness to a Troubled Saint-Making: Junipero Serra and the Theology of Failure
Luciana Bohne
The Double-Speak of American Civilian Humanitarianism
Joyce Nelson
TPP: Big Pharma’s Big Deal
Jonathan Cook
Israel Lights the Touchpaper at Al-Aqsa Again
Joseph Natoli
The Wreckage in Sight We Fail To See
Piero Gleijeses
Cuba’s Jorge Risquet: the Brother I Never Had
Andrew Stewart
Do #BlackLivesMatter to Dunkin’ Donuts?
Rajesh Makwana
#GlobalGoals? The Truth About Poverty and How to Address It
Joan Berezin
Elections 2016: A New Opening or Business as Usual?
Dave Randle
The Man Who Sold Motown to the World
Adam Bartley
“Shameless”: Hillary Clinton, Human Rights and China
Binoy Kampmark
The Killings in Oregon: Business as Usual
Harvey Wasserman
Why Bernie and Hillary Must Address America’s Dying Nuke Reactors
Tom H. Hastings
Unarmed Cops and a Can-do Culture of Nonviolence
October 06, 2015
Vijay Prashad
Afghanistan, the Terrible War: Money for Nothing
Mike Whitney
How Putin will Win in Syria
Paul Street
Yes, There is an Imperialist Ruling Class
Paul Craig Roberts
American Vice
Kathy Kelly
Bombing Hospitals: 22 People Killed by US Airstrike on Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan
Ron Jacobs
Patti Smith and the Beauty of Memory
David Macaray
Coal Executive Finally Brought Up on Criminal Charges
Norman Pollack
Cold War Rhetoric: The Kept Intelligentsia
Cecil Brown
The Firing This Time: School Shootings and James Baldwin’s Final Message
Roger Annis
The Canadian Election and the Global Climate Crisis
W. T. Whitney
Why is the US Government Persecuting IFCO/Pastors for Peace Humanitarian Organization?
Jesse Jackson
Alabama’s New Jim Crow Far From Subtle
Joe Ramsey
After Umpqua: Does America Have a Gun Problem….or a Dying Capitalist Empire Problem?
Murray Dobbin
Rise Up, Precariat! Cheap Labour is Over
October 05, 2015
Michael Hudson
Parasites in the Body Economic: the Disasters of Neoliberalism
Patrick Cockburn
Why We Should Welcome Russia’s Entry Into Syrian War