As his polling advantage evaporates, Sen. Scott Brown (R) is desperately trying to convince Massachusetts voters that his partisanship on Capitol Hill is a mirage, and that he's actually a moderate independent. As Rep. Barney Frank (D) noted on the show last night, after the latest debate between Brown and Elizabeth Warren, the Republican even went so far as to say he may not vote for Mitch McConnell for majority leader.
But the efforts quickly fell apart when Brown was asked to name his "model Supreme Court justice."
For those who can't watch clips online, the Republican senator, after a lengthy pause, first named far-right Justice Antonin Scalia. This was no small admission -- for all of Scott Brown's efforts to give the appearance of moderation, here he was, after pausing to reflect on his ideal justice, identifying one of the least moderate justices Americans have seen in a generation.
After months of trying to assure voters he'll ignore his party's right-wing inclinations on a host of key issues, Brown endorsed a partisan Supreme Court ideologue who's eager to do exactly what Brown claims to oppose -- including reject privacy and reproductive rights.
In context, it's true that if you read the transcript, you'll see that the Republican senator went on to mention Justices Kennedy, Roberts, and eventually Sotomayor. But as the clip makes clear, Brown only mentioned the other names when the audience booed his praise for Scalia, and the senator felt the need to scramble.
For much of the media, the key line in the debate was apparently Brown's pre-planned "zinger" about not being a student in Warren's classroom. But theatrical sound bites notwithstanding, what voters actually learned last night is that Brown's centrist facade is thin and easily chipped away. Anyone who sees Antonin Scalia as a "model Supreme Court justice" isn't a moderate.
For her part, Warren, who seemed delighted by Brown's answer, identified Justice Kagan as her model justice.
Leave a Comment:
One of Gregory's most outrageous questions was when he asked Warren to name a single Republican Senator she could work with by way of fixing what Gregory called the "dysfunction" in Washington. Now, why should Warren take responsibility for the fact that Republicans have made a virtue of refusing to compromise? She correctly named Richard Lugar -- the 30 year GOP veteran who was punished for reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. Gregory said that didn't count. The safe answer would have been Susan Collins of Maine. The better answer would have been Olympia Snowe from Maine who is retiring this year because she is sick of her own Republican Party and its obstructionist ways. Appalling that Gregory would have put Warren on the spot by projecting the GOP's own dysfunction on her by demanding that she do the impossible and name a Republican a Democrat can work with.
To Elizabeth's credit, Dancing Dave did ask her which Senator "now" in the Senate could she work with.
He used that same "zinger" or a variant in the debates with Martha Coakley. He said "I'm not in your courtroom". Even his "zingers" are tired Republican retreads.
The problem with Scott Brown's lying about his "independence" is that the real Scott occasionally makes an appearance. The longtime conservative Scott can only be restrained for so long. He yearns to be free of the fake persona Scott Brown is trying to create in an effort to run away from the Republicans.
His comments about Scalia and the other extreme far right justices show just how hard it is to keep "the other Scott" under wraps.
Scalia, who has held that corporations are persons under the 14th Amendment, has stated publicly that women and gays are not persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections. Someone should ask Brown and Romney about that.
Brown answered Scalia first because he was thinking scali, as in Italian scali bread and when he thinks of bread, he's thinking MONEY!
Brown's zinger is actually a retread. When he debated Martha Coakley in the 2010 special election top fill Ted Kennedy's seat, he said this: "I'm not in your courtroom. I'm not a defendant."
Ms. Rachel - I'm a barely cptr literate dinosaur, so I don't know for sure if this is getting to you. Did you hear about Jacqueline Hatch, Coconino (AZ) County Superior court judge? @9/8/2012 she sentenced a man convicted of sexual assault to 2 yrs probation/ com svc, and told the victim, "...it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't gone to that bar that night..." The case reminded me of the lawyer in the early sixties who based the successful defense of his client on, "If she hadn't wanted it, she shouldn't have dressed that way." Brown, Akin AND Scalia can all look up to Hatch. Please let me know if you get this.
I quit voting Republican in 1988 when it became apparent that the conservative agenda was to pack the court with fascists like Antonin Scalia. They have been wildly successful, and the Citizens United decision is something right out of Mussolini's Italy.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights.
We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act (VRA), it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last year's voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again.
If properly educated and aroused to stand up against Supreme Court activism from the bench the entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's Justice Scalia's attack on VRA as " racial entitlements" will not stand the test of time. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Voting Rights ACT it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, its Justices, can be challenged in public. Supreme Court Justices, get up and do your job or we will make it happen! Count on it!
Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights act on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women (Billionaires) in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they want in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls as proven in the 2012 election. They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially.
Commentator George Will knows this and should be ashamed of his views on VRA. He says VRA is 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to match payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled by the right wing opposition and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!
The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we've seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.
It is urgent that whoever can go to the Supreme Court and organize peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience protests in front of the Supreme Court ASAP to do so right away before Supreme Court Justices like Scalia will vote against the Voting Rights ACT of 1965!