Nor, of course, did he say it was.
Nor did he say anything inconsistent with the truth of her
brief history lesson.
What he said was about the politics of renewal of Section 5,
and what he said was true.
Irrelevant to the question whether intervention under
Section 5 continues necessary, but true.
Anyway, attacks of this kind have been going on for days, I guess
in preparation for an expected adverse ruling on Section 5 later this year.
Do they think he is the judge most likely to be shouted into
changing his vote?
Do they think he is the judge most likely to resign out of
stress-fatigue from being beat up this way?
Do they think they can set him up for impeachment?
Or is this just more of the usual identity politics hoopla
wherein Democrats flood the world with accusations of Republican racism to
enhance the loyalty of their black and other non-white constituencies?
In any case, I have seen nothing said by anyone making these
attacks that lends support to the claim that Section 5 intervention is still
needed.
Or anything that supports the claim that the court owes deference to the Congress on this matter.
Much less have they said anything to show that what Scalia irrelevantly said is untrue.
Or anything that supports the claim that the court owes deference to the Congress on this matter.
Much less have they said anything to show that what Scalia irrelevantly said is untrue.
There is nothing to all these attacks but the politics of personal destruction, as Bill Clinton called it at one time or another.
And to think I used to like this woman.
Not so much, any more.
No, I wouldn’t say so.
No comments:
Post a Comment