US Supreme Court Justice Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is A ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’
20 replies, posted
[IMG]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2013/02/antonin-scalia-jan-2012-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]In expressing his deep skepticism Wednesday for the constitutionality of a centerpiece of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned the motivations of Congress for repeatedly reauthorizing it since it was initially passed in 1965.
“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said during oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder. “They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”
At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which requires state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department prior to enacting them.
Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.
Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.
“Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.
The Reagan-appointed jurist said lawmakers keep reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act out of fear of political repercussions. In a sarcastic tone, he described it as odd that congressional renewal has passed with growing margins over the years in spite of the fact that racism is widely acknowledged to have become less severe in the covered jurisdictions since 1965.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/scalia-attacks-congress-for-renewing-voting-rights-act.php?ref=fpa[/url]
And many places still have minorities wait in long lines that can take hours to get through to vote. So much political agenda with Scalia
I saw Julian Castro (no relation I swear) speak tonight and someone brought this up to him, he said that it was unfortunate that this was his views on it.
Scalia is a big fuck.
Let me see if I've got this right - his argument is that non-discriminatory legislation results in minorities being 'entitled' to not being discriminated against? Or is it the (just as ludicrous) entitlement to vote?
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39744058]So much political agenda with Scalia[/QUOTE]
Rather, I see him as the opposite.
He seems fervently opposed to judicial activism and instead rules by the Constitution. If that means writing a dissent on [I]Roe vs. Wade[/I] then so be it, but his intentions seem honorable.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39744170]Rather, I see him as the opposite.
He seems fervently opposed to judicial activism and instead rules by the Constitution. If that means writing a dissent on [I]Roe vs. Wade[/I] then so be it, but his intentions seem honorable.[/QUOTE]
> all men are created equal
Huh, he must have missed that bit. Someone write him a letter reminding him it exists.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39744687]> all men are created equal
Huh, he must have missed that bit. Someone write him a letter reminding him it exists.[/QUOTE]
notice how it doesn't say "women"
it's almost as if the constitution was written by wealthy old white men interested in protecting their own power first and foremost and "protecting" it to the extent that you consider basic human rights "entitlements" (in the specific conservative pejorative meaning of the word) isn't "honorable" at all...
HMMMMMMMMMM.........
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39744170]Rather, I see him as the opposite.
He seems fervently opposed to judicial activism and instead rules by the Constitution. If that means writing a dissent on [I]Roe vs. Wade[/I] then so be it, but his intentions seem honorable.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately it's a rather inflexible document.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39744687]> all men are created equal
Huh, he must have missed that bit. Someone write him a letter reminding him it exists.[/QUOTE]
Can you show me the part of the Constitution where that comes from?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39744837]Can you show me the part of the Constitution where that comes from?[/QUOTE]
It's not from the constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;39744170]Rather, I see him as the opposite.
He seems fervently opposed to judicial activism and instead rules by the Constitution. If that means writing a dissent on [I]Roe vs. Wade[/I] then so be it, but his intentions seem honorable.[/QUOTE]
institutions should serve people, the people shouldnt serve institutions
the constitution should be serving us, not the other way around
[QUOTE=Melkor;39744842]It's not from the constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.[/QUOTE]
I know this. Read his post to find out that he does not.
god scalia is just such a conniving little shit
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39744902]god scalia is just such a conniving little shit[/QUOTE]
He's the very definition of Judicial Activism.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39744096]Let me see if I've got this right - his argument is that non-discriminatory legislation results in minorities being 'entitled' to not being discriminated against? Or is it the (just as ludicrous) entitlement to vote?[/QUOTE]
What I get out of his position is this: In previously racist states, the passage of this law has lessened racism, OMG it's working so let's get rid of it before it's too late!
[QUOTE=Melkor;39744842]It's not from the constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.[/QUOTE]
The constitution does bring up "other persons" which count as 3/5th's of a person. These other persons were slaves. His point is the founding fathers and the constitution were not exactly progressive, nor does the constitution protect women and minorities on it's own (it needs amendments for that) so being a "traditional" constitution interpreter is weakening the position of women and minorities.
I worded/explained that terribly but I am too tired
[QUOTE=Melkor;39744842]It's not from the constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.[/QUOTE]
My mistake, but in my mind it's just as valid a document.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39744993]The constitution does bring up "other persons" which count as 3/5th's of a person. These other persons were slaves. His point is the founding fathers and the constitution were not exactly progressive, nor does the constitution protect women and minorities on it's own (it needs amendments for that) so being a "traditional" constitution interpreter is weakening the position of women and minorities.
I worded/explained that terribly but I am too tired[/QUOTE]
I know. I've read the federalist papers, and studied the constitution in school.
[QUOTE=Melkor;39744916]He's the very definition of Judicial Activism.[/QUOTE]
i don't have an issue with judicial activism
i have an issue when it's activism that doesn't agree with my worldview
which is the only good one
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39744993]The constitution does bring up "other persons" which count as 3/5th's of a person. These other persons were slaves.[/QUOTE]
If I'm not mistaken, that was written in so that slave owners couldn't completely hijack elections by having every slave vote for who he wants.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39744096]Let me see if I've got this right - his argument is that non-discriminatory legislation results in minorities being 'entitled' to not being discriminated against? Or is it the (just as ludicrous) entitlement to vote?[/QUOTE]
His argument that former discrimination led to a solution which now has perhaps outstayed it's welcome due to the heightened impact it has on authorities twenty five years later, but said solution is now very hard to move to the offline.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;39745990]If I'm not mistaken, that was written in so that slave owners couldn't completely hijack elections by having every slave vote for who he wants.[/QUOTE]
It also works the other way around. If the South couldn't count slaves as population/votes they would have had very little say in Congress. The 3/5ths part somewhat levelled the population playing field so that everyone could agree on the Constitution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.