Scalia: Voting Rights Act is ‘racial entitlement’

Yes, I could hardly believe it was said. But then again, look at the source.

A USSC justice likened the Voting Rights Act, an act that ensured equal access to voting for all Americans no matter what color, to a "racial entitlement".

Now I ain't no Supreme Court justice, but I am fairly sure that the implied right to vote, to have access to the polls, in the Constitution is not a "racial entitlement", but rather a founding tenet of our country. After all, did the Voting Rights Act also not ensure that poor white Americans could also have access to vote?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/02/27/scalia-voting-rights-act-is-racial-entitlement/

The 1965 Voting Rights Act, which gave African-Americans in the deep South access to the ballot box, is a “racial entitlement,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday as the court heard oral arguments in a legal challenge to the landmark law from the state of Alabama.

The outspoken, ultraconservative Scalia discounted the fact that Congress has repeatedly reenacted the law — most recently by a 99-0 Senate vote in 2006 — and argued that its renewal is “not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said. “They are going to lose votes if they do not re-enact 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? I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity.

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through normal political processes.”

The case of Shelby County vs. Holder is a challenge to the landmark Section 5 of the act. It requires nine states (eight in the South) as well as local governments in other states to “pre-clear” changes in voting procedures with the U.S. Department of Justice. The act has been invoked as recently as the 2012 election, in which several state legislatures made rules changes designed to impede early voting.

The Voting Rights Act appears to have solid support from the Supreme Court’s four moderate-progressive justices. But it faced hostile questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts. He asked Solicitor General Donald Verrelli if “the citizens of the South are more racist than citizens of the North.”

The plaintiffs have argued that restrictions that the Voting Rights Act sought to redress are no longer present in places like Shelby County, Alabama.

The court’s deciding vote appears to rest with Justice Anthony Kennedy, who appeared none too friendly to the landmark civil rights law. “Times change,” Kennedy said during the oral argument. He also asked how much longer Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the federal government.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared taken aback at Scalia’s observations. (Scalia has made news in recent months with off-the-bench remarks that appeared homophobic.)

“Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked the attorney for Shelby County. He dodged the question.

 

I suspect that they'll try to bring back lynchings next.

 

Then again, consider the times. Here in Virginia, it is a racial entitlement that results in gerrymandering to guarantee black-majority districts (something Democrats love).

Virginia is the first state (commonwealth, technically) to elect a black governor since Reconstruction, and it voted for Barack Obama in the past two elections. All the voting rights act is accomplishing here is the violation of the law concerning how congressional districts should be drawn (compact, contiguous, etc.) and to protect Democratic seats in Congress.

As Justice Kennedy said, times change, and so have states/commonwealths like Virginia. The Voting Rights Act is nothing more than a corrupt anachronism here...

 

Neither party has a monopoly on gerrymandering. The majority party constantly tries to stack the deck in their favor.

 

I suspect that this will be the most gratuitously idiotic post I'll read today.

 

Where are the words in the Constitution that "imply right to vote"? You have read the Constitution many times I'm sure?

Is it your thought for yourself that the voting rights act was aimed at insuring that poor white people could vote? Do you have a quote from the debate on this issue in mind or are you guessing for yourself??

 

Irrelevant.

 

Scalia is the epitomy of crass. Is it any surprise that the party that wanted to end "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" put this pompous p*#-^ on the bench to do exactly that?

 

Perfectly relevant in response to your post, where you claimed it was Democrats who loved gerrymandering. I simply pointed out that both parties engage in such behavior.

 

I see the drama queens are out in full force over this one. Where is it stated precisely what he said or the context he said it in?

Educate yourself on Section 5, you will learn it requires decisions based on race.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/voting-rights-case-made-simple//

 

A USSC justice likened the Voting Rights Act, an act that ensured equal access to voting for all Americans no matter what color, to a "racial entitlement".

He is correct in what he says. For instance because of these provisions the city I live next to has to have a government where of the 7 districts 3 of them have to be designed to ENSURE a black majority population. And no budget items can be passed unless at least one of the black districts votes for it giving a black voter more power than a white voter.

In my town next door I have to drive right by the firehouse which is a polling place with a majority black population as I drive several miles further to the civic center to vote.

It is time to either let these provision of the Voting Rights Act expire AS THEY WERE SUPPOSE TO DO LONG AGO, or apply them to EVERY STATE so that we get equal treatment.

 

I see - I thought you were addressing the merits, or lack thereof, of the Voting Rights Act here in Virginia.

If the justices look at how things have turned out here in the Commonwealth, the VRA is probably headed for the dustbin of history, and rightly so. If the law had been more narrowly implemented and enforced then I think it would have a better chance of withstanding a court challenge.

There was a time when the VRA was necessary and appropriate, but that's not necessarily the case today.

 

Yes, the Progs where told what to think yet again on this one. They have NO IDEA what was actually said and the context it was said in. What a bunch of useful idiots!

 

I believe that is what you were attempting to do. I never mentioned Virginia.

 

Fine.....means YOUR right to vote doesn't exist too, right?

Keep that in mind going into the rest of the 21st Century, amigo.

 

You also didn't mention the specific quotes nor use any context.

<<<mod edit>>> flaming Section 5 REQUIRES decisions based on race.

 

Scalia = Mussolini

 

It's a racist law, plain and simple. If you're OK with racism then carry on. Here's what YOU BUILT:



This district is designed to keep tribally voting hispanics focused on electing Luis Guiterrez, a racist POS. YOU DID THIS.

 

Scalia is a constitutional judge. The judges who are looking down at him for this opinion---are clearly legislating judges. I don't know how this act holds up to the constitution--but that is what these judges are their for. They aren't supposed to allow a law simply because it sounds good to them. They are supposed to decide if it is constitutional. And that is where Scalia is focusing---is it constitutional for some states to be treated differently then others.

 

But Virginia is subject to the racially based gerrymandering of the Voting Rights Act, right?

 

This is all derived from a lawsuit against Eric Holder... so of course the left is going to play their typical game of extracting, cherry picking, and skewing what was said in an effort to lash out and attack those whom they believe are holding their dear leaders accountable.

I will note... it took 8 CLICKS on different websites to finally get to the transcript to the conversation. All of the liberal rags proclaimed that you could get the full transcript by clicking an embedded link, but of course the effort took you on a wild goose hunt of buried links.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf

I digress. The transcript is long, but the discussion IN GENERAL is about racial segregation in various counties, and how the cost and federalism in regard to protecting the constitution were necessary, especially considering the south had changed.

So, basically we have a lawsuit that challenges federalism and additional levels of red tape, where it isn't necessary, as racial segregation and discrimination no longer exist in the region, especially in terms of constitutional rights.

In speaking of the legislation and renewal of the act implemented to prevent racial discrimination:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, maybe it was making
that judgment, Mr. Verrilli. But that's -- that's a
problem that I have. This Court doesn't like to get
involved in -- in racial questions such as this one.
It's something that can be left -- left to Congress.

The problem here, however, is suggested by
the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment
of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for
it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the
Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And
that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again
for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the
Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single
digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate
votes against it.

And this last enactment, not a single vote
in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much
the same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the
fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this.
I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to
a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial
entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a
society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult
to get out of them through the normal political
processes.

I don't think there is anything to be gained
by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.
And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in
perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not
comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when
you are treating different States differently, that
there's a good reason for it.​

So no. He didn't say that the Act itself was a "racial entitlement". What he said is that the law isn't necessary anymore, and LIKE racial entitlement laws, studies show that they are very hard to get rid of, even when they are no longer necessary.


But hey... Eric Holder and is federal power grab is being questioned, so ATTACK! Right?


Who cares about facts and objectivity? Do a search for the terms TFM posted. All the liberal rags picked up the story, and people like the OP run with it. Sadly, that isn't at all what was said. It took me 30 minutes though to finally find the transcript and then decipher the statement. As suspected... its fabricated.


/thread

 

Clearly it is not! And clearly the left wants racist vestiges of our past to remain law for their advantage.

 

It's way past time to do away with the Voting Rights Act. It's being used now...and has been for years... as a political tool to try to get political advantage, having nothing to do with race. Take for instance, one of these states trying to make election rules regarding hours for early voting.....which has ZERO to do with race. They are being blocked from doing so....even though other states who aren't under this rule have the same kinds of hours.

 

While this is all true.....it's more about politics and not race. It's just proof the Voting Rights Act has been abused and why it needs to be reversed. Democrats have used it for decades to keep Democrats in office. If there were a sudden shift in these voting blocks......let's say the majority of Hispanics were going to Republicans and the black vote was more like 50/50......you would see Democrats no longer supporting the Voting Rights Act. It needs to go; it's nothing but a poltical tool abused by Democrats to gain unfair political advantage. And this ridiculous map proves just how it's being abused.

 

What Scalia was specifically debating was Section 5, where the Federal Government overseas 9 specific states. The argument is that such usurption of the States Rights is no longer required.

Scalia's argument was brilliant. Meanwhile, Kagan and the Wise Latina come across as the jurisprudence morons that they are, whining like stupid liberals do. Let us hope that they throw out this piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) bit of liberal doggy poo.