Month: February 2013

According to reporting by Katrina Trinko of National Review, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told one member during a closed-door conference yesterday that they had to allow a vote on the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) or they would cause a “civil war” within the Republican caucus. It is quite possible that Cantor was correct. South Jersey Congressman Jon Runyan (formerly a red cape for Michael Strahan when he played offensive tackle for the Philadelphia Eagles), led a bloc of 19 Republicans who insisted on a vote on the Senate version. The Republican majority is currently 232-200, which means that 19 defections would put the Democrats in the majority on this issue at 219-213. The way the rules of the House work, whatever a majority wants to do, they can do. If a bipartisan majority wants something that the House leadership opposes, they can create a discharge petition. The way a discharge works is hard to explain but what it boils down to is that if a majority of the total membership of the House signs the petition then they can force a vote on a bill.

What Rep. Runyan demonstrated was that he had the votes to prevail on a discharge petition. Signing a discharge petition when you are serving in the majority is deeply disloyal and is almost never done. But Runyan didn’t have to sign one because his ordinary petition conveyed the message adequately.

Cantor was chosen to send this message to the pro-rape caucus because he was the leader of the pro-rape cause. Cantor still wound up voting against the VAWA reauthorization, but he recognized that his side was defeated and he didn’t want his defeat to become a huge story.

If you are wondering how Boehner could lose his speakership, this is basically how it would happen. It would probably be a coup from the middle rather than a coup from the right. In this case, Boehner caved in because he wanted to cave in. But he could easily face a different issue where he decides to stand with the wingnuts. And then some bloc of about 20 moderate Republicans (mostly from the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest) could cut a deal with the Democrats to elect a new Speaker.

If you think it can’t happen, take a look at comments from Mid-Atlantic Republicans Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Pete King of Long Island, New York. Patience is definitely wearing thin since the vast majority of the Republican caucus voted against relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy.

The thing is, if this cookie crumbles, it won’t crumble just for Boehner. If the caucus splits apart in the way I’ve described, it will pretty much be the end of the GOP as a national party.

Update [2013-2-28 22:56:39 by BooMan]: I see from some of the initial responses to this piece that I have left too much unsaid and therefore too much left to the imagination. So, let me expand on this a little to make clear what different scenarios would look like.

Scenario One: Right-wing Republicans grow frustrated with Speaker Boehner repeatedly violating the Hastert Rule and passing bills that the majority of Republicans oppose. They want to replace Boehner with someone more conservative who won’t violate the Hastert Rule. The problem is that the Speaker is elected by a vote of the entire House, and they must receive an absolute majority. This ensures that a Democrat cannot win unless some Republicans vote for a Democrat, but it also means that moderate Republicans can threaten to do just that. A split in the conference would result in Pelosi winning a plurality and that would force a second vote. It would be on that second vote, or possibly a subsequent vote, that the Speaker would actually be chosen, and it is unlikely that the result would be a more conservative speaker.

Scenario Two: Moderate Republicans get fed up with gridlock and inaction, and decide to cut a deal with the Democrats. All the Democrats will agree to vote for a moderate alternative to Boehner in return for certain concessions. The concessions would probably take the form of ratios on committees, but could conceivably involve changes in the House rules or power-sharing arrangements. It’s hard to say, since this kind of haggling ordinarily occurs only in parliamentary systems.

Scenario Three: Pro-Defense Republicans get fed up with the Sequester and make a deal similar in many respects with Scenario Two. The problem here is that it would require a simultaneous split in the Democratic Party, and this is unlikely to occur, especially in the numbers required for success.

It’s really only Scenario Two that has any chance of happening, and it won’t happen unless and until things deteriorate significantly from where things stand today. However, the template for such a split was seen in the Superstorm Sandy vote and the VAWA reauthorization vote, both of which caused almost unprecedented strain within the GOP caucus with strong regional differences.

To say that I am concerned and alarmed at what I see happening to the Republican Party in DC would be a gross understatement. You might be welcoming the news that the House of Representatives finally reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, but the details are scary. Speaker Boehner had to, once again, violate the so-called Hastert Rule which holds that no vote will be allowed that the majority of the majority doesn’t support. The final roll call in the House ended with the majority of Republicans (138-87) opposing the reauthorization.

Now, on the one hand, that the Republican leadership is growing increasingly comfortable governing with a reliance on the Democratic minority is a positive development and something that I felt was absolutely necessary if we are not going to implode politically in this country.

On the other hand, the House Republicans are dangerously radicalized. I’d also note that Eric Cantor stood with the radicals today and throughout the battle over reauthorization.

Cantor’s main objection is that the new version of the law empowers Native American tribal courts to prosecute people who come on their reservations and rape women. Irin Carmon wrote about this problem last year in Salon.

“We have serial rapists on the reservation — that are non-Indian — because they know they can get away with it,” said Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center in Lake Andes, S.D. “Many of these cases just get dropped. Nothing happens. And they know they’re free to hurt again.”

Asetoyer was talking about the loophole that prevents tribal authorities, who have jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian territory by Indians, from having any authority over non-Indian male abusers. That’s despite the fact that non-Indian men account for an estimated 80 percent of rapes of Indian women, and that the astronomical rate of abuse of Indian women is well documented by the federal government.

This is this situation that Eric Cantor fought so hard to perpetuate. I mean, this is crazy. Before the House passed a bill that addresses this issue today, they voted for a version of the bill that would not address it. It actually got 166 votes, only two of which were cast by Democrats (Dan Lipinksi of Illinois and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina).

I’ll give credit to Boehner for sticking up to his own crazies this time, but I don’t know how much longer he can hold on.

John Frampton was the head of South Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) until he resigned in March 2012. Shortly thereafter, the release of a study he championed regarding the effects of climate change on South Carolina was “delayed” even though he had pushed for its immediate release before he left the agency. The 102 page study prepared by DNR staff scientists recommended that the state do more to educate the public about the anticipated effects of climate change to the state’s environment. Yesterday he spoke out publicly about the state’s refusal to release the report, which specifically acknowledged the reality of climate change and the impacts it would have on South Carolina:

John Frampton, who left the Department of Natural Resources last year, said that the Earth’s rising temperatures will undoubtedly affect the state’s landscape and wildlife in coming years and that the DNR is well qualified to examine the impacts in South Carolina.

“I would liked to have seen the DNR be a leader,” Frampton said this week. “I would have liked to have positioned our staff … on this. We have experts in the agency” to assess climate change. […]

Frampton declined comment when asked if he had received any pressure not to release the study before he left DNR. A majority of the agency’s board members were appointed by Gov. Nikki Haley after her election in 2010 on a pro-business, jobs-first agenda. The DNR report was under way when Haley took office in 2011.

The draft report, a copy of which was only recently was obtained by The State, specifically noted that climate change was caused by human activity, and that the public needed to be made aware of the deleterious impacts coming their way.

The DNR’s draft study says that, with temperatures in the South projected to rise up to 9 degrees over the next 70 years, the Palmetto State should prepare for increases in wildlife disease, loss of prime duck hunting habitat and the potential invasion of non-native species such as piranha and Asian swamp eels. Many such exotic species have taken hold in Florida, but as temperatures rise, could move into South Carolina, the report said. […]

Among those serving on the 18-member DNR study group were seven PhDs, a climatologist and at least five other agency biologists.

“Scientists in all divisions of the DNR are concerned over the potential impacts of climate change on natural resources,” the draft report says. “DNR recognizes climate change as a real phenomenon, grounded in numerous scientific studies, and DNR recognizes that thoughtful and careful planning is needed in order to protect the natural resources of the Palmetto State and to benefit its citizens in the future.” […]

Bob Perry, a DNR official and the climate report’s editor, said completing the study isn’t a major point of emphasis now that his agency is under new leadership.

The article in The State also reported that Frampton retired in 2012 after conflicts with Caroline Rhodes, then the Chairperson of the Board that oversaw the Department of Resources. Rhodes had been appointed to her position by Republican Governor Nikki Haley. The DNR climate change study pre-dated the Haley administration. Although current DNR officials are claiming that the refusal to release the study is not politically motivated, it’s hard to accept their denials at face value. The report was on track to be released until Haley, a Tea Party favorite, was elected as South Carolina’s governor and appointed her own people to the DNR Board after assuming office in 2011.

The only logical conclusion is that her administration quashed the climate change report prepared by the state’s own scientists based on political considerations.

(cont.)
Former DNR chief Frampton’s refusal to comment on whether he was ordered not to release the report prior to his resignation speaks volumes. It isn’t that hard to connect the dots. Ann Timberlake, head of one of the leading South Carolina environmental groups, Conservation Voters of South Carolina, slammed the Haley administration’s refusal to release the DNR study on climate change.

“The science needs to be released. The public wants information they can trust.” […]

“It looks like there was a difference between (Frampton) and the board,” Timberlake said. “We have a huge amount of respect for the staff at DNR, but If the state has funded the report we need to see it in its entirety. Do they think the people of South Carolina can’t understand a scientific report?”

In The State article Gov. Nikki Haley said that solutions to climate change are what needs to be prioritized rather than causes. Timberlake did not disagree with that approach but added, “We need to talk about the science before talking about the policy,” she said.

By the way, a link to the DNR study, “Climate Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South Carolina,” can be found here. These are a few of the impacts the study addresses:

• Disruption of the timing of plankton blooming, which would effect food supplies for many marine species.
• Increase “dead zones” in the coastal waters off South Carolina.
• Create worse droughts.
• More saltwater in rivers, affecting fish species and possibly drinking-water supplies.
• Rising sea levels and coastal erosion.
• More floods.
• More disease that impacts shellfish and vegetation.

Haley has already indicated she wants South Carolina to eliminate as many regulations as possible to provide a “market-friendly regulatory system” and “get rid of government rules that hamper businesses.” This includes regulations regarding the environment, such as the requirement by businesses to obtain environmental permits from the South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). The head of the DHEC and the state’s Chamber of Commerce are both on board with “streamlining” the environmental permitting process. As for dealing with climate change, well …

Haley spokesman Godfrey said the governor believes the “focus of analysis should be less on the sources of climate change and more on the solutions.” Haley is concerned about the U.S. taking action on climate change in the absence of other major industrialized countries doing likewise, which could hurt the economy, Godfrey said.

Meanwhile, DNR board member Larry Yonce said he’s skeptical that global warming is the reason for recent warm winters in South Carolina.

Somehow, I don’t believe Nikki Haley and other South Carolina Republicans are all that interested in finding solutions to climate change in light of her emphasis on making South Carolina a “business friendly” state, and the fact that Governor Haley is ultimately responsible for refusing to release an important study on climate change prepared by the state’s own scientists. If she doesn’t even want to talk about the causes of climate change how will it be possible for her to implement any possible “solutions?” As her own spokesman indicated, she’s just not that into doing anything about climate change, period.

Body of Murdered Gay Mayoral Candidate Found in Mississippi

(Adcocate.com) – Coahoma County coroner Scotty Meredith reported that investigators believe they have located the body of gay mayoral candidate Marco McMillian. According to the Clarion Ledger, a body was found near the Mississippi River and though the identification hasn’t officially been confirmed, Meredith told reporter Emily La Coz that McMillian “is the only person we have missing.”  

 « link to MWM website
A man of excellence, his life cut short - Marco Watson McMillian (Clarion Ledger)

McMillian, CEO of MWM & Associates — a consulting firm that works with non-profit organizations — had been missing since Tuesday morning. ABC 24 News reported that inside sources say McMillian, who until his death was in a bid to become mayor of Clarksdale, Miss., gave a ride to someone who ended up killing him, dumping his body along a river levy west of the city, and stole his car.

It was, in fact, it was a head on collision with McMillian’s SUV that led investigators to search for the candidate. His car was found around 8:30 a.m. Tuesday near the Coahoma County-Tallahatchie County line, reports Jackie Orozco, and when McMillian wasn’t in it police began to search for him.  

The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation is now investigating. The Victory Fund tweeted their condolences, saying “Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Marco McMillian, one of the 1st viable openly LGBT candidates in Mississippi.”

McMillian, who had served as international executive director of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity and chief of staff to the president of Alabama A&M University, was apparently in a tight mayoral race. The last message McMillian posted on Facebook is a telling reminder of the young man’s legacy.

“If you must judge me, judge me not by who I have become, but rather judge me
 by the difference I attempt to make in the lives of other people.”

The following is an excerpt from page 267 of my 2005 edition of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, a book which formed the basis for the movie Lincoln. The setting is the 1860 presidential campaign, shortly after Lincoln secured the Republican Party nomination.

[Lincoln] recognized that anything he said would be scanned scrupulously for partisan purposes. The slightest departure from the printed record would be distorted by friends as well as enemies. Even his simple reiteration of a previous position might, in the midst of a campaign, give it new emphasis. He preferred to point simply to the party platform that he had endorsed. His few lapses justified his fears. A facetious comment to a Democratic reporter that “he would like to go to Kentucky to discuss issues but was afraid of being lynched” was made into a campaign issue.

Underlying this policy of self-restraint was another important but unvoiced political reality: Lincoln had to maintain the cohesion of the new Republican Party, a coalition of old Democrats, former Whigs, and members of the nativist American Party. Informing a Jewish friend that he never entered a Know Nothing lodge, as accused by Democrats, he cautioned that “our adversaries think they can gain a point, if they could force me to openly deny this charge.” Although Lincoln himself had disavowed any sympathy with nativists, and had actually invested in a German paper, many Republicans remained hostile to immigrants, and their support was essential.

What lessons should we take from this little slice of history? We could focus on Lincoln’s shrewdness. He understood very well what it would take to win the White House, and he was willing to get in bed with one devil (anti-Catholic xenophobes) in order to deal with another one (slavery). That’s interesting, but I’d rather focus on the persistence of this alliance in the Republican Party.

The Know Nothings were angry about cheap labor from Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Those immigrants happened to be Catholic, for the most part, and that was also a source of concern. The preponderant Catholicism of the 11 million undocumented Latino workers in this country seems to actually be one of the few things the modern GOP holds in their favor. Christian sectarian differences are less important than they used to be, but race is still a big deal.

In its formative stage, the Republican Party enjoyed a fairly healthy (although inherently corrupting) relationship between Wall Street industrialists who had money to invest and western states that were thirsty for infrastructure. But that wasn’t enough to get them over the top. They needed the nativists to get them there. Even as the Republican Party slowly rotated from a northern party into a southern party, the nativists never really left. All that happened is that their numbers were bolstered by the remnants of the Confederacy.

Other things have changed. It’s appropriate that Obama’s first-term Secretary of Transportation was an Illinois Republican. The modern GOP doesn’t believe in investing in infrastructure anymore. That healthy link between Wall Street investors and the GOP is broken. Perhaps it is the square peg of nativism that broke it. Rather than being an unfortunate, yet necessary, coalition partner, the appendage became the feature. I don’t know if the nostalgia of the Know Nothings was quite as ahistorical as the nostalgia of the Tea Party, but everything else seems the same. The ahistorical feature of the modern GOP perhaps comes from the heavy dollop of Christian fundamentalism that was introduced in the 1970s and then combined with the anti-science interests of certain energy industrialists. Whatever the case, the result is a truly toxic brew.

I didn’t think I’d be saying this two or four years ago, but I don’t think the modern Republican Party is redeemable. The signs that it is in retreat come every day, but yesterday was a particularly bad day for them.

Sen. Jefferson Sessions of Alabama spent hours on the floor yesterday, railing against the confirmation of Jack Lew as Treasury Secretary, but in the end he could only get 24 Republican colleagues to join with him. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was humiliated by a Milwaukee police chief during a hearing on gun violence held by the Judiciary Committee. The previously feared and revered journalist Bob Woodward was busy trashing his own reputation as he transformed himself into a Donald Trump caricature. Sean Hannity had his ass handed to him by a black Muslim congressman from Minneapolis. Justice Antonin Scalia made one of the most racist and inappropriate comments from the bench of the Supreme Court that we’ve seen in modern history. Meanwhile, the whole world is aligned in stupefaction that the GOP would rather trash the economy than make modest compromises with the president on the budget.

There is no party left for the center-right. I think that that one will be created.

I will be following Kerry’s travels through Europe and the Middle-East. Will he avoid the echo-chamber of the US State Dep’t and the status-quo of leaders Western Atlantic Alliance by creating his own foreign policy? The first indication in the UK with Cameron and in France with Hollande didn’t appear Kerry managed to escape policy already chiseled in stone. Interesting questions were asked: Intro Kerry about Kyoto and development green energy – Q. US policy on Middle-East for peace Israel-Palestine – Q. Inclusion of foreigners in the German state, how does the US succeed – Q. Intervention by US in the Maghreb, North Africa. – Q. Again the Middle-East and a peace initiative … (43 min.) Q. Why did you go to Vietnam and later opposed the war?

Kerry meets Syria opposition ahead of Rome talks

Things you can learn on the Internet:

Antonin Gregory Scalia is the only child of Salvadore Eugene and Catherine Panaro Scalia. His father emigrated from Sicily as a teenager and came through Ellis Island.

That’s cool. One of my four great-grandfathers emigrated from the very northern tip of Italy through Ellis Island and settled in Hoboken, New Jersey. What’s more, little Antonin Scalia grew up in Hamilton, New Jersey, which is only 15 miles from where I grew up in Princeton, New Jersey.

As everyone who has seen True Romance and believes Quentin Tarantino’s version of history knows, all Sicilians are “part-eggplant.” Ever since that movie came out in 1993, people have been debating the degree to which Sicilians really do have black ancestry. Try battling through the Google results to find any decent scientific data on the subject.

Maybe Antonin saw that movie. Maybe he’s overcompensating a bit. Maybe we should have his mitochondrial-DNA tested to see if he’s white enough to vote in Alabama.

I’d say that if Scalia is any more than 4% black, we should just consider him black and ask him to correctly tell us how many jelly-beans are in a jar before we allow him to register to vote. Maybe he doesn’t know that at the time that Lincoln was running for president that one of the biggest constituencies that Republicans had to pander to were members of the Know Nothing Party who thought that Sicilians were no better than negroes and should be barred from entering the country.

Daniel Day-Lewis is so brilliant in “Lincoln” that the rest of the movie almost doesn’t matter.  It’s as if he first became Abraham Lincoln and then showed up for the filming.  Good actors can recreate the manners, gait, voice, and emotions of a character, but few can dig down deep enough to the core of a being and then on top apply countless layers one by one.  In Lincoln, what Day-Lewis is to acting, Vermeer is to painting.

Lincoln’s dialogue in the movie is so superior to that of the other characters, that on reflection I began to wonder if Day-Lewis contributed to it.  The answer appears to be yes:

Kushner said he “picked over words” in the final script with actor Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays Lincoln in the film, “trying out different sentences–what if we did this, what if we did that.” Kushner called the back-and-forth a lot of fun.

The complexity, intelligence, and humanity of Day-Lewis’ Lincoln is realized fully enough that it should dispel any doubts about Lincoln’s greatness in the minds of viewers.  Sadly, only the cinematography (and possibly the sound) is as “pitch perfect” as Day-Lewis.  Fortunately, Day-Lewis didn’t allow the shortcomings of the script and Spielberg to interfere with his work.  He reached for and achieved the sublime.  Had others on the project upped their game halfway between what they delivered and what Day-Lewis delivered, “Lincoln” would have been a great movie worth watching for more than possibly the greatest performance in movie history.

It would have been helpful if Spielberg had set aside his well-known personal tics, and if he and Kushner had taken off their 2010 liberal lenses.  With the exception of Sally Field, the casting was good enough  Not that most of the actors had much to work with.  Still, Tommy Lee Jones performance was lazy.*  To realize a somewhat more accurate and believable Mary Todd Lincoln, an actor closer in age to the depicted forty-five year old character would have been preferable to one that’s sixty-five.  Sally Field is a decent actor, just not in a league with Day-Lewis.  Finally, the dialogue and depiction of Mary in the script is dreadful and at that more suited to the stage than a movie; so, Fields gets more applause and less criticism than she deserves.

It’s almost as if “Lincoln” were two movies.  One melodrama with enough historical manipulations and inaccuracies to put it in the category of fiction.  The other stepping back in time for an hour long encounter with Abraham Lincoln.  Once is more than enough of the former, and twice will likely be too little of the latter for me.      

*For me, Tommy Lee Jones is always worth watching.  After hearing of the raves for his performance in “Lincoln,” I expected to join those that were disappointed that he lost out to Christoph Waltz  for the Supporting Actor Oscar.  IMHO, the Academy got this one right and it wasn’t even much of a contest.  

Have you ever been thrown in a sack with a hungry and half-mad badger and then been told to take the wheel and drive the car? No? Well, then you’re not Barack Obama and you haven’t met David Ignatius.

Some of us can recall the helpless feeling of being in a vehicle driven by someone who is intoxicated. If you’re like me, you don’t want to cause a scene unless the driving is really erratic. But there comes a moment when you need to say: Stop the car. You’re going to hurt someone. Hand over the keys.

We have a political system that is the equivalent of a drunk driver. The primary culprits are the House Republicans. They are so intoxicated with their own ideology that they are ready to drive the nation’s car off the road. I don’t know if the sequestration that’s set to begin Friday will produce a little crisis or a big one; the sad fact is that the Republicans don’t know, either, yet they’re still willing to put the country at risk to make a political point.

I’m no fan of the way President Obama has handled the fiscal crisis. As I’ve written often, he needs to provide the presidential leadership that guides Congress and the country toward fiscal stability. In my analogy, he should take the steering wheel firmly in hand and drive the car toward the destination where most maps show we need to be heading: namely, a balanced program of cuts in Social Security and Medicare and modest increases in revenue.

You folks want to take this one?

I mean, where to start, right? Why does Social Security ALWAYS have to be part of this conversation? In any case, what the hell does Ignatius think Obama has been saying for the last three damn years? What did he say when the Republicans refused to pay our debts? What did he say all throughout the campaign? What did he say when we reached the Fiscal Cliff? What did he say in the State of the Union? What did he say today, yesterday, and the day before that?

He said that we need a balanced program of cuts (including to Medicare) and modest increases in revenue. The White House has already talked about making the cost of living adjustment for Social Security less generous. If you don’t believe me, do a LexisNexis search for “chained CPI.” You’ll discover that it is a cut to Social Security. You’ll also discover that progressives positively hate the idea. How many times does the president have to propose exactly what every pundit over 40 in DC thinks he should propose before he can take credit for driving the car?

But he’s not allowed to drive the car alone. The inebriated sot, John Boehner, must introduce all bills creating revenue, and he’s chained down in the driver’s seat by rabid badgers, weasels, and wolverines who are tearing at his flesh and leaving no part of his reputation or legacy unmutilated.

How far do we have to go with this imagery? Boehner and his merry band of mustelids have already crashed this car into embankments, cement walls, and valley floors. In any sane world, the people would have taken the keys away long ago.

In any sane world, David Ignatius wouldn’t still be demonstrating what a tosser he is in the pages of the Washington Post.

Chief Justice Roberts has been gunning for the Voting Rights Act since he was in short pants. If you want to know the sordid history, which began when Roberts worked in the Reagan Administration, Adam Serwer has the recap. You should be very concerned. During oral arguments, today, Justice Scalia elicited audible gaffes when he said that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

That’s right. Section 5 compels areas of the country with a documented history of race-based voter suppression to get permission from the Justice Department if they want to change their elections laws. The law says people of all “races” are entitled to vote. If you deny certain races that right by, say, intentionally causing eight hour voting lines in minority areas of Florida, then you are taking away something they are “entitled” to. It’s not a racial entitlement, it’s a citizen’s entitlement.

Do we have to lock Scalia in a room and force him to watch Lincoln until he gets this distinction?

The last two times that Scalia has heard a case on Section 5, he has complained that it was reauthorized with no dissenters in the Senate. Supposedly, the unanimous support for a law in Congress marks that law as suspect.

Scalia claimed four years ago that this unopposed vote actually undermines the law: “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”

That was an unusual comment when it was made, but Scalia’s expansion on it today raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes. Scalia noted when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, it passed over 19 dissenters. In subsequent reauthorizations, the number of dissenters diminished, until it passed the Senate without dissent seven years ago. Scalia’s comments suggested that this occurred, not because of a growing national consensus that racial disenfranchisement is unacceptable, but because lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists.

SCOTUSBlog warns us that we should expect another 5-4 ruling, one that strikes Section 5 from the books. That’s their preliminary analysis after listening to oral arguments today. They don’t think preclearance will be will ruled completely unconstitutional, but the law will have to be redrafted somehow if we’re going to salvage anything.

That a black man, born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia, could be a party to such a ruling simply boggles the mind and takes self-loathing to a level probably not seen before outside of an asylum.