Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Scalia
According to Scalia, in order to preserve the challenged provision of the Voting Rights Act, we need more Senators to vote against the whole Act. That is, he finds the fact that the Senators voted 98-0 to renew the Voting Rights Act as a political choice. Had they voted, say, 72-26, with D and R in both groups, that would make the continuation of the Voting Rights Act more justifiable.
My recommendation to the Senators: have an up-or-down vote on the Voting Rights Acts. And after the first 72 senators vote "yay", I'd like each of the remaining Senators in session to vote "nay". This way, Congress can protects its power to legislate the law, rather than have Scalia call into question their professional integrity.
Yes, of course what I just said is insane. But having unanimous support for something be used against you is even moreso. According to Scalia, a law should be stricken down if you either have a majority against it, or unanimous support for it. Where's John Nash when you need him?
?
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 152 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers