Limbaugh: Scalia’s ‘well-endowed intellect’ should be ‘honored’ to be compared to me

By David Edwards/Raw Story

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 hadpointed 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 Sharptonobserved 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.”

Listen to this audio from the Rush Limbaugh Show, broadcast March 4, 2013.

Maddow tells ‘Daily Show’: Sotomayor and Scalia brawled over Voting Rights Act

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Appearing on Thursday night’s episode of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” MSNBC progressive news host Rachel Maddow recounted her trip to the Supreme Court earlier in the week to watch the justices debate the Voting Rights Act, on the same day that a statue of Rosa Parks was being unveiled just yards away.

“I feel like I don’t have a number line that is long, enough, that goes high enough, to understand how on the same day we are unveiling the statue of Rosa Parks at the U.S. Capitol, and one block away we are considering getting rid of the pillar of civil rights law,” she said. “And that happens at the same time at the same place and nobody’s head exploded. But that’s what we did.”

Justice Antonin Scalia drew some shocked reactions during that hearing when he referred to the Voting Rights Act as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement” in America, saying Congress was cowed into overwhelmingly re-authorizing the law for the fourth time in 2006.

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said. “They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights movement and played a key role in getting the Voting Rights Act passed, told MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton he felt the comments were “unreal, unbelievable,” and “almost shocking.”

Maddow said she felt very “weird” seeing Scalia speak like that “in person” because of a certain rhetorical style that does not come through in transcripts of the court’s deliberations, which are never televised or even filmed. “Being there in person you can see, ‘Oh, actually, he’s a troll,’” she said. “He’s saying this for effect. He knows it’s offensive and he knows it’s going to get a gasp from the courtroom, and he loves it. He’s like the guy on your blog comment thread using the n-word.”

Scalia’s reasoning apparently tweaked Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who Maddow said several times turned to “give him what for” on calling the right to vote a racial entitlement. The Obama-appointed justice reportedly asked attorneys challenging the Voting Rights Act whether they think racial discrimination has ended in America, and whether Congress voted for it because they felt it was a racial entitlement.

“Her questions are technically to the lawyers, but she is talking to Antonin Scalia every time,” Maddow said. “It’s like a brawl between them. It’s great.” She added that Sotomayor appeared “ready for” Scalia, “and has a rejoinder that would make him feel embarrassed if he wasn’t a troll who loves to make people mad.”

These videos were aired on Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013.

Part one:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part two:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Video: Justice Scalia Echoes Republican Political Rhetoric During The Affordable Care Act Argument

By Jeff Spross and Ian Millhiser/Think Progress

We will not know until June whether the Supreme Court will strike down the Affordable Care Act or decide instead to follow the Constitution. One thing that was completely clear from this week’s oral argument, however, is that one member of the Supreme Court is far more concerned with reciting political talking points than he is with actually upholding the law. Watch the following video compilation to see the many times Justice Scalia echoed anti-Obamacare rhetorical barbs by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and other leading Republicans while he was supposedly being a neutral judge weighing the merits of the Affordable Care Act:

Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering

By Ian Millhiser

Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:

Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. … Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.

Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.

What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?

By Ian Millhiser Earlier today, ThinkProgress’ Lee Fang revealed several documents outlining the details of one of right-wing billionaire Charles Koch’s secret convenings of corporate political donors. As Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journal in 2006, the purpose of these meetings is to recruit “captains of industry” to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks and media outlets. Buried in this document, however, is a surprising revelation about the role two supposedly impartial jurists have played in these extended fundraising solicitations: “Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”

A Supreme Court justice lending a hand to a political fundraising event would be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, if it wasn’t for the fact that the nine justices have exempted themselves from much of the ethical rules governing all other federal judges. Nevertheless, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court tells ThinkProgress that “[t]he Justices look to the Code of Conduct for guidance” in determining when they may participate in fundraising activities. Under that Code:

Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.

Scalia and Thomas’ participation in these fundraising gatherings also call into question whether they can be impartial in any number of cases brought by Koch-aligned groups seeking immunity to the law. Most significantly, the Koch brothers have contributed significantly to efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect, and a number of attendees at the Koch’s secret meetings include health industry moguls with a direct financial stake in the litigation challenging health reform (Justice Thomas’ wife, of course, actively lobbied against the Affordable Care Act).

Court observers hoping that Scalia and Thomas will recuse themselves from cases backed by the “Kochtopus” shouldn’t hold their breath, however. During the Bush Administration, Justice Scalia infamously refused to recuse himself from a suit against Vice President Dick Cheney even after it was revealed that Scalia and Cheney went on a duck hunting trip together during the pendancy of Cheney’s case. Scalia also came under ethical fire when he skipped Chief Justice Roberts’ swearing in ceremony to attend a junket to a Ritz-Carlton resort funded by the right-wing Federalist Society; and Thomas accepted more than $42,000 in free gifts in just six years on the Supreme Court.

At the very least, however, Scalia and Thomas should publicly disclose exactly what role they played in supporting Koch’s secret fundraising network. These fundraising meetings exist for the purpose of eliminating laws and regulations that corporate America does not like, and a sitting Supreme Court justice can do a great deal to advance this purpose (indeed, Scalia and Thomas both already handed an enormous gift to the Koch’s corporate network by joining the egregious decision in Citizens United v. FEC). The two justices’ attendance at these events raise serious questions about whether Scalia and Thomas are deciding cases impartially — or whether they are pushing the exact same agenda as all the Koch events’ other attendees.