Massachusetts 1, John Roberts 0

[LiberalFighter]

Chief Justice LIED about identifying Massachusetts as having the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout. LIED LIED

From Rachel Maddow

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has long opposed the Voting Rights Act, so it didn't surprise anyone when he was outwardly hostile towards the law during oral arguments this week. Indeed, the jurist seemed well prepared with talking points he delivered with great authority.

"Do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to African-American voter turnout?" Roberts asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli. When Verrilli said he did not know, Roberts answered the question for him: "Massachusetts." Moments later, the chief justice did it again, asking, "Which state has the greatest disparity in registration between white and
African American?" Again the solicitor general did not know, and again Roberts said, "Massachusetts."

James Carter took a closer look at the latest information on voting and registration from the U.S. Census Bureau and found that Roberts appeared to be completely wrong. What's more, the Boston Globe talked to Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, who's eager to explain just how mistaken the conservative justice is. "I'm calling him out," Galvin said.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Roberts is disturbing.

Appeasement has consequences.

[graham4anything]

3. Al Gore would never have nominated Roberts or Alito. Ralph Nader lied.

So much for the meme that Bush and the democratic party are one and the same.
Ralph Nader lied. Third parties in the general election %^&*@ us all don't they?

God, I love Sonia and Elena.

[noiretextatique]

4. actually, SCOTUS installed Bush, not Nader

yet another reason why all of the conservative partisans on the court all need to be impreached.

[graham4anything]

7. According to Nader, Gore and Bush were the same. SCOTUS proves Nader lied.

anyone who believed Nader in 2000 should remember the motto "NEVER AGAIN"
next time one wants to have a protest vote for a 3rd party, or sit on their hands, or
believe a candidate that was heavily financed by the republican party to start off with.

Hillary45 Clinton will ensure that another Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts/AKennedy/Rehnquist/OConnor/Bork/Meirs are NOT picked.
Al Gore would not have picked any of those 5 that were picked and the 2 that weren't.
John Kerry would not have picked any of those.
Jimmy Carter would not have picked any of those(and the Jettising of Jimmy meant he did not get to nominate at least 2 people to the court.
And Barack Obama has given us two great SCOTUS and wouldn't have nominated any of those.
But Jeb Bush would.

remember in 2016 even if there are some that doesn't like the democratic nominee, that
all actions have consequences, and 2000 proved that.

NO Ralph Nader, the worst democratic candidate is better than the best republican one,
and the two parties are NOT the same.
And (not to anyone specific), Burning down the current Democratic party will just lead to
President Jeb Bush.

Hope that doesn't fall on deaf ears. Like it did when I tried to tell people this in 2000
(and other times there was a 3rd party spoiler like 1980 and John Anderson).

And SCOTUS won't be impeached.
Only way is when they retire, make sure a democratic president is there to replace them.

[noiretextatique]

9. the SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with Nader

it had everything to do with a partisan court hellbent on installing a republicon. i know it's still in vogue to bitch and moan about Nader in this supposed democracy, but in reality, what SCOTUS did was a judicial coup and unfortunately THAT doesn't seem to matter as much to some as Nader. not to mention the fraud in Florida and elsewhere. sorry...i don't accept that we have to keep accepting a corrupt system.

[MNBrewer]

10. It's not in vogue, that's what's so pathetic about these hardcore Nader haters

a la 1984, Nader is and always has been an enemy. 2 minutes of hate at a time.

*sigh*

[graham4anything]

37. If you are referring to me

I would have gladly voted for Ralph Nader
HAD RALPH NADER WON THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IN 2000 instead of Al Gore.

But he didn't.

So the #1 environmental candidate for president LOST thanks to him and his republican financed campaign. Everything Nader SUPPOSEDLY worked for went down the drain thanks to Ralph himself. In effect, RALPH SOLD OUT.

1984? Reagan beat Mondale in 1984, thanks to people selling Jimmy Carter down the river in 1980.
Just say NO to any 3rd party candidate for President.
Sure as Bush41 bummed around the plaza in 1963, Nader takes the blame for enabling
12/12/2000 in the first place.

the correct phrase should be
Nader and Bush41
Nader and Bush43
Nader and JebBush
are one and the same.
And I am sure Nader would do it again in 2016 if he could.
Nader is the 1%.
Al Gore was 99% of the way there, and Nader was the 1% that caused Al Gore to not be seated.
4 damn New Hampshire electoral votes. Gore would have had 271 with those 4.

[graham4anything]

11. But Nader said both were the same. NO BOTH ARE NOT THE SAME. SCOTUS PROVES IT.

I blame Nader for NH and Gores not being seated
(and in the USA, not being seated means one did not win. It's quite simple).

however-
one doesn't need to even blame Nader for 2000 results
TO BLAME NADER for lying.

Remember, 10 million LESS voters came to the polls in 2000 from any other modern time.
That means who knows how many of them didn't bother, thanks to the LIES of the heavily financed by republicans Ralph Nader telling voters both parties are the same.

BTW, you mean 5 of the 9.
4 did not vote that way.

And it puts to rest any other LIE that democratic party and republican are one and the same.

President Obama has nominated two super great SCOTUS (and I have known and been a fan of Elena's for many years now, long before she became SCOTUS.
One of my relatives went to school with her, and told me decades ago she would one day become a Supreme Court justice (long before O'Connor was the first woman Justice btw).

So don't tell me Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayer are the same as Thomas and Scalia and Roberts and Alito.

Ralph Nader lied.

I can't fathom why anybody on this democratic party board would still defend Ralph Nader
(and I am not saying anyone in particular).
Yes, Ralph Nader lied. SCOTUS proves Ralph Nader lied.
Especially those who think SCOTUS stole 2000 should admit Ralph Nader 100% lied.

Al Gore and George Bush were not the same.

Had Gore been seated, the court now would be 6 to 3 or 7 to 2 the other way.

And btw, Al Gore would not have picked Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall,
one of the biggest travesties ever.
Ralph Nader lied. Shame so many trusted and believed in him.
I thankfully never did.

[SunSeeker]

20. The Naderites will never admit their mistake. Even with the facts staring them in the face.

They'll just ignore the facts, like your repeated point that Nader lied when he said the two parties were the same. They shouldn't have believed him then, and they sure as hell shouldn't believe him now.

[noiretextatique]

54. democrats did nothing to even protest the SCOTUS decision

except the congressional black caucus, of course. the rest of the party decided to go along with treason "for the good of the country." keep focusing on the fly on the elephant's ass instead of the elephant. when it happens again, you won't have anyone to blame.

[SunSeeker]

56. Seems to me it is the Naderites who are ignoring the elephant.

To say that the Republicans are the same as the Democrats is to ignore what the Republicans are.

[noiretextatique]

57. no...it's "democrats against democracy" who are absolutely fox-like

in their devotion to one silly meme, the one that claims no one except democrats and republicons have any legitimacy in this so-called democracy. this "difference" between republicons and democrats is one of degrees, not of real substance....that's what nader meant, and it is absolutely truth.
democrats pander to wealthy, corporate and war interests, just like republicons. the only difference is that the 99% gets a few more crumbs with the latest reincarnation of DINOs, aka, the third way dems. and at least democrats have progressive pushing them to be democrats vs. republicons who have been forced to pander to the teabaggers. nader wasn't wrong on substance, at all.

[SunSeeker]

59. I have seen no posts slamming Nader on substance, just his egomaniacal run that gave us Bush.

And for that matter, I have seen no posts here or anywhere saying third parties are not legitimate. Just that progressive third parties are strategically suicidal for Dems in elections.

Nader said Dems and the GOP were the same. That is not the truth. He did not qualify it in any way. He did not say he meant "the difference is one of degrees." That is not what "same" means.

A Dem vs a Repuke president makes a huge difference for the 99%. Getting a Sotomayor as opposed to a Scalia on the Supreme Court is not a "crumb." Yes, Dems pander to the wealthy (for donations, so they can get elected), but not "just like republicons." No Dem would say what Mitt said on the 47% tape. But just about every Repuke would.

I totally applaud progressive third parties infiltrating the Dems and steering them left, like the Tea Party did with the Repukes. But quixotic campaigns by progressive third party candidates that peel off just enough Dems to let the Repuke win is terrible for our country. Because Republicans in office are terrible for our country.

[zeemike]

15. But Nader makes for such a good distraction.

And while we hate on him they will pull the same shit again on us.

[SunSeeker]

17. If we don't learn the lesson of the Nader debacle, you can bet the Repukes will pull that shit again

If another third party candidate runs to siphon Dem votes, that will allow the Repuke candidate to get it, or get it close enough so that just a little local shenanigans or judicial intervention will get them over the top.

[zeemike]

33. What about the Buchanan lesson?

He got tens of thousands of votes in a Jewish precinct in Florida?...is there a lesson to be learned there?
I think there is...and that lesson is that they can have it any what they want, as long as we are watching the shiny things they dangle before our eyes.
Over the years I have seen this used against us and it seems to work every time.... they seem to manipulate us with shills that tell us what to be concerned about and then do their dirty work out of our site...and we never seem to catch on.

[graham4anything]

36. New Hampshire, NH NH Florida did NOT matter without Nader and 3rd parties

3rd parties ruin everything.
Buchanan was also a 3rd party, but look at the facts-

New Hampshire and its 4 votes enabled Florida to matter.
Do people not realize how many electoral votes Al Gore had, and that Al Gore lost New Hampshire???

It took seeing the # total votes in the recent elections and seeing that 10 million FEWER voters came out to vote in 2000.
And Nader's LOUD MANTRA that both parties are the same is equal to saying WHY BOTHER
and people stayed home

enabling 12/12/2000 and the 5 justices (whom wouldn't have been picked had it not been for Democratic fracture in 1968 and 1980 in the first place.
(George Wallace and John Anderson-3rd party runs in those years).

Anyway you slice it and dice it- 3rd parties always cause another party to win.
100% of the time, a vote NOT for the democratic Presidential nominee, is a vote for the other side, no matter whom it is.

So I can't fathom anyone actually wanting the democratic party to win over the republican party wanting the republican to win.
Everything has consequences and there are no runoffs at this point in time in Presidentials telling the voting booth that if 3rd party can't win, which one of the others you would want.

Hindsight and age makes one see the repeated pattern that can easily make Jeb Bush president in 2016.

Why would anyone even consider it????? (unless one truly does not care that Bush became President in 2000 and 2004 and Reagan became President in 1980 and 1984 and 41 won in 1988. And Nixon won in 1968.

What the hell is good in protest, if the end result is a massive loss and a helleva lotta steps backwards. Just to say told you so???? and have whining privledges the next 20 years???

And even if those in New Hampshire come up with some convoluted other reason, it amounts to the same thing
PROTEST VOTES IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS by Democratic leaning voters, throw the election to the Republican party.

(note-some here were so worried about Ohio and Karl Rove in 2012, but Ohio was irrelevant and the election quickly called for President Obama.
The important part is- win 270 BEFORE ohio or Florida and it renders both Ohio and Florida immaterial to the SEATED President.

Is that so hard to understand???

Gore winning NH in 2000 and race called at 8pm for Gore, Bush concedes at 11, Al Gore was the 43rd president
NO Alito NO Roberts
NO 9-11
NO Iraq.

[zeemike]

38. Well no offense intended but you are a true believer.

And I am not.
But I do know how things can be rigged, and it is far simpler than you might think...the key is to not steal it all...just enough to win.
But I confess I am a cynic and just don't buy the story line I hear in the media...cause I believe that is the pipeline they use to make you think it is all legit....and even question your sanity if you don;t believe it.
I think the unthinkable things.

[DWinNJ]

43. I'm not sure what you mean about the Buchanan lesson

Buchanan did not get those thousands of votes because people liked or believed what he said, Gore lost most of the votes in that area of Florida because the "butterfly" ballot was so confusing that people voted for the wrong candidate. Florida had a lot of things go wrong which all combined screwed the whole country.

[zeemike]

44. Yep...butterfly ballots.

That they knew produced the results they got.
Hanging chads...caused because they did not clean out the machines after and election and they sent the oldest machines to democratic districts....and dozens of other tricks they could use to make things come out the way they wanted them to come out...and Nader had nothing to do with that.
But we must believe it was all just an accident, cause we are not allowed to entertain the idea of a conspiracy to steal the vote.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[noiretextatique]

58. it most certainly was a conspriracy to steal the vote

and with the help of SCOTUS, it worked. and with the help of democrats against democracy, nader still gets the blame: the person who simply ran for office, which he should be able to do in a so-called democracy. meanwhile, after all these years, democrats against democracy continue to focus on the fly on the pink elephant's ass. the gop has rw radio and faux news to spread complete lies about...well, everything...but nader's "no difference" rhertoric remains THE problem with 2000 for too many. sad...really, really, sad.

[brush]

51. Those votes were never meant for Buchanan. We all know that. nt

[jeff47]

23. No Nader, no opening for the SCOTUS decision.

Like it or not, he did matter.

[BlueDemKev]

34. Amen.

[noiretextatique]

55. what about those people who "believed" gore?

the gore who caved to the SCOTUS decision vs. fighting for the people, as he claimed he would? did he LIE also? grow up...the problem with 2000 had nothing to do with your ridiculous notion about people believing nader's rhetoric, anymore than it had to do with people believing gore's or bush's rhetoric. the real problem was fraud and treason. and until that changes...

[SunSeeker]

16. Nader made it possible for SCOTUS to install Bush. nt

[ljm2002]

49. Warning: Thread hijack ahead... n/t

[Euphoria]

8. Yup

nt

[brush]

50. And this guy is the CHIEF JUSTICE?

GOD, just completely wrong (and I remember how he screwed up the President's first inaugural oath, too). We're stuck with either a not-so-smart dolt making decisions on the court for the next 20-30 years or we're stuck with an evil, not so truthful partisan hack trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes to make a point, one he should know could be easily disproven, unless he is the actual dolt mentioned before.

[Berlum]

2. Republicans lie about everything

They are a plague upon America with their endless self-serving lies and general deception.

[valerief]

21. A Republican FACT is a statement that bears no semblance to the truth whatsoever. nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

5. Wouldn't Roberts be considered an activist judge?

I mean, that's what I constantly hear from the reactionary bubble world about the more liberal jurists.

[SunSeeker]

24. Hell yes. He's not supposed to be out digging up his own facts and arguments.

As Roberts himself said, he's supposed to just call balls and strikes. It's up to the parties to the case to present the facts and legal arguments, and it's up to the Court to decide which side has more merit.

[demwing]

6. You might think the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS

Would have a fucking fact checker.

You might think that...but you would be wrong...

[valerief]

22. He's got propaganda to spew instead. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

27. You mean catapult?...

[valerief]

29. Yeah! nt

[nineteen50]

12. "Supreme Court

The Judicial Wing of Billionaires"

[jimmy the one]

13. Sonya & Elena & Ralph

graham: Ralph Nader lied. Third parties in the general election %^&*@ us all don't they?

Especially when they're narcissists like nader.

God, I love Sonia and Elena.

Sonya Sotomayor is turning into a democrat icon, a real lady justice with no blindfold on.
On Elena, let's hope this below was just a passing fancy, a quickly passing fancy:

Kagan Fulfills a Promise and Goes Hunting with Justice Scalia
Posted Oct 20, 2011 Kagan said she had never owned or fired a gun, CNN reports. "But I told the senator if I was fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would go hunting with Justice Scalia,”
Kagan lived up to her word. She has accompanied Scalia to a shooting range and on several hunting trips, she said. “It turns out, it's kind of fun," she added.

Uh oh. Killing animals, kind of fun? Say it ain't so, EK.

[mountain grammy]

25. Are you kidding? Does Cheney go?

I don't believe I'd be around the boys with guns, but I don't worry about EK.

[davidpdx]

31. My guess is Kagan being a first time hunter probably wasn't that good of a shot

(not because she's a woman, but she was inexperienced. I've only fired a gun once and I don't think I'd be very good at it either). I'd think there is a strong chance she didn't hit anything. It sounds like she was doing a little ass kissing during the confirmation and then followed through (at the minimum level needed) to show she kept her promise. I'm not saying I know this for sure, but I wouldn't rule this out as a possibility.

[Iliyah]

14. The five justices and the GOPpers want

America to fail.

[Trascoli]

18. If it wasn't for Roberts, American Healthcare

might have been stopped. I'm not ready to give up on the guy yet. I think he might be one to stay on our side. He's new, give him a chance. He's allready thrown us a huge bone to trust him.

[BlueDemKev]

35. I really would love to believe that...

In 1992, after two years of voting mostly with the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter shocked everybody by casting the decisive vote in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. After that ruling, Justice Souter became one of the court's most reliable liberal votes.

I want with all of my heart to believe that Roberts' vote to save Obamacare was his "David Souter" moment, and I hope that the unbridled amount of hatel mail he's received from right-wingers over the past eight months has made him realize he's been fighting for the wrong side and perhaps he may now at the very least become a swing vote on the court. However, I am not convinced that Roberts has had his "Souter" moment. The questions he asked this week during the Voting Rights Act, Sec. 5 oral arguments didn't give me much hope.

[COLGATE4]

52. Roberts is just a hard-nosed pragmatic

Repuke. He (correctly) calculated that, if he cast his vote to do away with the ACA that it would create a firestorm and forever tarnish his legacy as C.J. The man may be a Repuke hack but he's not stupid. Changing his initial inclination to vote against the ACA allowed him to preserve the preception of a 'fair and balanced' (pun intentional) C.J., while carrying out the larger Repuke agenda unscathed. Don't expect any more 'road to Damascus' moments from Roberts.

[BlueDemKev]

60. I'm not holding my breath...

...but it WOULD be nice to see him become more independent, even if it were only to the degree of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Maybe the amount of hate mail and threats he's received since upholding the ACA will discourage him to keep carrying water for the far right.

But yes, I agree that he realized voting to strike down the ACA and it being a 5-4 vote along the traditional ideological faultline would have caused everyone to see the SCOTUS as nothing more than a political body with a conservative caucus and a liberal caucus...200+ years of it being an independent institution would have been over.

[ShadowLiberal]

19. Well duh if you have few African Americans you have a bigger white/african american turnout gap

The real number that's relevant is percentages of each race group that votes, and registers to vote.

P.S. Roberts, I hear Maine has even worse White to African American voter turnout

(for those who don't get it, I believe Maine has the lowest percentage of African American population out of all 50 states)

[SunSeeker]

26. Yes, as they say, there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics. nt

[LiberalFighter]

30. Exactly as pointed out in the stats.

But numbers apparently escape Roberts' thought processes. Or he is too lazy. Or more likely perfers to create data to match his thought process.

[jmowreader]

45. It's tied for third

http://www.statjump.com/lists/black-population-dp1c54bs.html

The bottom ten are:

Montana at 0.3 percent (Montana has 1.005 million population)
Idaho at 0.4 percent (Idaho has 1.6 million people)
Vermont and Maine tied at 0.5 percent (Vermont total population is 626,000; Maine has 1.33 million people)
The Dakotas, tied at 0.6 percent (ND has 700,000; SD 833,000)
New Hampshire at 0.7 percent (NH population is 1.32 million)
Wyoming and Utah tied at 0.8 percent (WY population 576,000; UT 2.855 million)
Oregon at 1.6 percent (3.9 million population)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25000.html
Massachusetts has 7.8 percent African-American population and 6.6 million people.

Mass' problem is it's not overrun with conservatives so it tends to be abused by assholes like Scalia.

[RILib]

47. No Shadow

Suppose you have this population:

10 African Americans, 9 of whom vote
1000 Whites, 600 of whom vote

The AA turn out rate is 90%
The White turn out rate is 60%

It's turnout, not the absolute number of people voting in each category.

[mountain grammy]

28. Just saw a report on the Supreme tapes on NBC news with Brian Williams

of course, no correction of Robert's Massachusetts "facts." Really, did I expect one? But there should be one, dammit! People watch that and think "ha, Massachusetts!" and whatever else their dull brain lets in.
You're no journalist, Brian Williams. Switching to al Jazeera.

[LiberalFighter]

32. Brian Williams is a blowhard. Always puffing himself up in statuts.

[tartan2]

39. And this is our chief justie???

The SCOTUS has become a joke and as our high court a laughing stock of the world.

[John2]

40. What did that question have anything to do

with voter suppression? The point of the Law was that everyone had the right to vote whether they turned out or not. If people don't turn out to vote you can't force them to. So I don't see the Justice's point in asking that question anyway? I think he was just throwing something to see if it would stick to justify a decision he already made up in his mind. I question his integrity to decide this case.

[oldandhappy]

41. Not much of a justice if he goes into a case with him mind made up

Should excuse himself. ha ha Not a chance, eh?

[indepat]

42. Surely just an honest mistake, surely the Chief Justice did not lie in the attempt to

persuade subversion of our Constitution. Surely not.

[markpkessinger]

46. That's "Balls & Strikes" Roberts for you! n/t

[RILib]

48. So which state is the worst?

[eppur_se_muova]

53. But but but he read it on a right wing blog, so it must be true !

Or maybe he was listening to Rush. Either way, facts are facts.