Scalia And Sotomayor Clash In Proof-Of-Citizenship Voting Case

[ProSense]

Scalia And Sotomayor Clash In Proof-Of-Citizenship Voting Case

Sahil Kapur

Justices Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor clashed Monday during Supreme Court oral arguments about whether states may require residents to submit proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The outcome of the case is uncertain as the justices appeared narrowly divided.

The case involves an Arizona law adopted in 2004 that requires proof of citizenship prior to registering to vote (Prop 200). Challengers argue that it should be struck down because it violates a 1993 federal law (the National Voter Registration Act) requiring states to accept a registration form that lets most voters register to vote when renewing their drivers licenses or applying for social services, simply by attesting under oath that they are citizens.

Much as they did weeks ago during arguments over the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, the two justices on Monday each led the charge on opposite sides of the case — Scalia for less federal involvement in states’ ability to set their voting laws, and Sotomayor for broad national authority to protect citizens’ right to vote.

Sotomayor’s opening volley began immediately after Arizona Attorney General Thomas C. Horne stepped up to defend his state’s law. She fired off a series of questions, which she would continue asking in different flavors throughout his argument, about inconsistencies between Arizona’s Prop 200 and the NVRA.

- more -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/scalia-sotomayor-clash-voting-case-arizona.php

[graham4anything]

1. May Justice Sotomayor serve for decades and decades, may Scalia retire in June.

Revenge will be sweet when the court becomes 6 to 3, 7 to 2, 8 to 1
in the next 12 years.

Remember, all those times people have said
they and us are one and the same
SCOTUS proves they lie.

[elleng]

2. Remember, we can hear audio of the argument starting Friday,

in C-SPAN archive.

[ProSense]

5. Thanks. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Sotomayor is awesome

Obama made a wise choice

[ProSense]

4. I love her. n/t

[still_one]

6. As far as Scalia is concerned it has nothing to do with states rights, it is because he is a

Racist pig

I apologize to pigs for associating them with Scalia

He isn't fit to sleep with them

[ProSense]

11. There is that. n/t

[1-Old-Man]

7. I think the article is disgusting, trying to make the Court look like no-holds-bared Cage-fighting.

This is the sort of reporting I would expect from FOX, where everything has to be a major controversy, which is nonsense of course.

[ProSense]

9. Well,

"I think the article is disgusting, trying to make the Court look like no-holds-bared Cage-fighting. This is the sort of reporting I would expect from FOX, where everything has to be a major controversy, which is nonsense of course."

...you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's an insult to equate a report about a debate where two sides disagree and are passionate about their arguments with the shit that appears on Fox noise.

I mean, do you believe that people shouldn't be privy to the context of SCOTUS debates unless it's presented in dry and uninteresting articles?

[apocalypsehow]

8. Good for Justice Sotomayor, challegening this patently racist attempt of Arizona's GOP to suppress

minority turnout. Can't wait till we have nine liberals like her on the court - Heller will be reversed, for starters.

[bigdarryl]

10. What a fucking Pig this man is a waste on the court

[Hekate]

12. KnR for Justice -- Sonia-style!