Rachel Maddow tagged him as a troll, as "the guy on your blog comment thread who is using the n-word."
When we're all shocked that he said something so blatantly racially offensive while talking about the cornerstone of the federal Civil Rights Act, he's thinking, "Oh yeah!"Which is true, but there's more. When he dismissed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and therefore the equal right to vote as "racial entitlement" and said that Congress renewed the act in 2006 only because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it [Sidebar: The vote was 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.], he was revealing his real concern, which is partisan or more exactly ideological advantage. It's not about the law, it's not about the Constitution, and it sure as hell isn't about justice. It's about how the reactionaries can turn back the clock.
I mean, really, have you actually read any of his decisions? I can't imagine how he got this reputation as a great legal mind. The guy is a dork! Sure, he can quote case law - which would seem to be a baseline requirement for competency for a Supreme Court justice - but his arguments often read like a concoction of sloganeering and non sequiturs.
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.