Law & Justice

• The bottom line, said Clyburn, is that the 1965 civil rights law has "had a positive impact on the voting rights of people traditionally denied the right to vote. To ignore that, to me, is beyond the pale. It means you went to the bench with an agenda."
• Liberal racial hypocrisy

Jennifer Bendery, Huffington Post

Submitted by Evergreene Digest Contributing Editor Lydia Howell

This article is made possible with the generous contributions of all reader supported Evergreene Digest readers like you. Thank you!

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) criticized Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over comments he made about the Voting Rights Act. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

03/01/2013 | Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Friday that he was "absolutely shocked" to hear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia describe a key piece of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most significant achievements of the civil rights movement, as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" earlier this week.

"I'm not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven't been in a long time," Clyburn said of Scalia's comments, during an interview with HuffPost. "What Justice Scalia said, to me, was, 'The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain't got no concerns for me because I'm white and proud.'"

Full story...

Related:

Liberal racial hypocrisy, Falgunia Sheh, Salon

• Killing people of color just for being a suspected threat is a total outrage for liberals. Well, sometimes.
• Just because a president liberals like is calling for targeted killings doesn’t make the policy any less troubling — politically or racially.

• A legal effort to block the government’s warrantless domestic surveillance program has failed after the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a group of journalists, lawyers and human rights groups cannot challenge the law.
• America’s Global Torture Network

Nermeen Shaikh, Democracy Now!

If you like reading this article, consider contributing a cafe latte to all reader-supported Evergreene Digest--using the donation button above—so we can bring you more just like it.

February 27, 2013 | In what’s being described as a Kafkaesque decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a group of human rights organizations and journalists cannot challenge the government’s warrantless domestic surveillance program because they can’t prove they are targets of it. The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of human rights groups and journalists filed the lawsuit in 2008 hours after President Bush signed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave the National Security Agency almost unchecked power to monitor international phone calls and emails of Americans. We’re joined by the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. 

Full story [includes rush transcript]...

Related:

America’s Global Torture Network, Robert Scheer, Truthdig

• When it comes to torture in the post 9/11 era, the record of the United States is so appalling that one must question our claimed abhorrence of the barbarism of other nations.  
• Extraordinary Rendition Report Finds More Than 50 Nations Involved In Global Torture Scheme