SC Justice Scalia Admits State May Use Internment Camps … “In Time Of War”

Supreme Court Justice Predicts Return Of Internment Camps

 

 

 

 

 

” On Tuesday Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was quoted, in a Washington Examiner article, discussing the possible the return of World War II style “internment camps”:

  Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another a wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“ You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

  The local Associated Press report quotes Scalia as using a Latin phrase that means “in times of war, the laws fall silent,” to explain why the court erred in that decision and will do so again.

“ That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot,” Scalia said. “That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification but it is the reality.”

  The discussion of “FEMA Camps” has long been attributed to the over-active minds of conspiracy theorists, but when a Supreme Court Justice speaks on the issue, it would behoove people to listen. ”

 

DC Clothesline has much more

 

 

 

 

 

 

—

“What 4th Amendment?” SCOTUS Approves DNA Data Collection From SUSPECTS … Not Just Convicts

 

SCOTUS says “What 4th Amendment?”

 

Published on Jun 5, 2013

” In a recent ruling, the US Supreme Court ignored the 4th amendment and paved the way for states to collect DNA from people who have not been convicted of a crime.”

(LINK TO SCOTUS OPINION) 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/…

http://www.facebook.com/AmidstTheNoise
https://twitter.com/AmidstTheNoise
©2013 Amidst The Noise

 

 

 

HT/Paolo Rubino

 

 

 

—-

Voting Rights Act Revisited

100 Percent FED Up

 

 

” JUSTICE SCALIA: The Voting Rights Act Is A ‘Racial Entitlement’

Conservative Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 during oral arguments today, signaling that a key provision of the landmark civil rights legislation might be struck down.Justice Antonin Scalia sparked controversy when he referred to Section 5 of the law as “the perpetuation of a racial entitlement,” sparking immediate backlash from the left.

Section 5 requires states with a “history of racial discrimination” to have any changes to their voting laws approved by the Justice Department’s civil rights division or Washington, D.C.’s federal court.

Scalia explained that he was not convinced the law was legitimate simply because Congress had voted to reauthorize it five times, most recently in 2006 by a 99-0 Senate vote and similarly overwhelming House vote. He said that the “normal political process” couldn’t be applied to this situation and questioned Congress’ political motives for reauthorization.

“Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this,” Scalia said of the VRA’s continued reauthorization, according to the Supreme Court transcript. “I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

”

 “I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act,” he added. “And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.”Later in oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor directly challenged Scalia’s assertions. She asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the Alabama county challenging the legislation, if he agreed.

Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?” she asked him.

He ducked her question. She asked again, but Rein would not say whether he agreed with Scalia’s comment.”

Supremely Odd Couple

Elena Get Your Gun

 ” The national media have ignored a fascinating development, one worth keeping an eye on: Justice Elena Kagan has taken up recreational shooting and hunting. She likes it so much that she has moved from small game (quail) to big game (elk). Wade Payne of the Knoxville News-Sentinel described an October 19^th informal talk given by Justice Kagan at the University of Tennessee:

Witty and affable, Kagan often kept the crowd chuckling Friday with her preference for comic book hero movies and American Top-40 music – “it keeps you in touch with the people,” she said -and tales of learning to shoot fowl with Scalia.

The shared hobby started during her confirmation hearings in 2010 when Kagan told a senator who was probing for her views on gun rights that she had never been hunting, but would ask Scalia to take her if confirmed. When she officially landed on the court, Kagan told Scalia about the promise she made. Amused, he first taught her to shoot clay pigeons before graduating to quail. “

Related articles

• A Really Odd Pair Of Supreme Court Justices Likes To Go Hunting Together (businessinsider.com)
• Scalia’s Advice to Law Students: Take Bread-and-Butter Classes, Not ‘Law and Women’ (abajournal.com)
• Justice Kagan says Scalia is game hunting partner (kansascity.com)

Scalia Speaks

  Justice Antonin Scalia speaks out about the mandate .

  ” “You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” Scalia said. “What my dissent said … was simply that there is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. It simply does not bear that meaning. In order to save the constitutionality, you cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear.” “

A Bill of Goods

  With all eyes on SCOTUS today we’ve deliberately remained silent . Not without opinion , but out of deference to the multitude of bloggers with legal backgrounds that can offer the public their expertise .

    We are from the business world and as such can offer only common sense and a historical kind of sense as to our understanding of the Constitution , the Founders and their ideas of liberty .

  That being said , our initial reaction to the Roberts Court’s finding was a feeling of being sold down the river . We are sorry to say that this post at Volokh Conspiracy merely serves to amplify the feeling that Roberts caved to media/political pressure .

   Tax , Commerce , who cares what you call it ? A Mandate is a Mandate . Where does that fact that the citizens can be forced to BUY something fit into the concept of individual liberty ?

” Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion “