Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Justice Scalia calls key Voting Rights Act provision a "racial entitlement"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Justice Antonin Scalia said yesterday during oral arguments that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance for any effort to change "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" in any "covered jurisdiction," and hence which is key (if not the key) instrument the federal government has in terms of blocking lower orders of government from restricting voting rights, is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement."

Which is to say, Scalia, like other conservatives (on the Court and otherwise), thinks that efforts to enforce equal voting rights are somehow discriminatory against the majority race (i.e., whites, or otherwise those who didn't need the Voting Rights Act to have their voting rights protected). As Think Progress notes, his remark "raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes," the latter being an argument he has made in the past (as if somehow unanimous votes are, in and of themselves, suspicious and indeed illegitimate, which is remarkably stupid).

I'll leave it to others to dissect this contemptible man's legal views. I'd just add that if you don't know the difference between a right and an entitlement, if you don't understand the purpose of the Voting Rights Act and why it might still be necessary to protect voting rights from those out to strip them away, and if your judicial mind and worldview generally is clouded by self-regarding bitterness, you should have no place on the highest court in the land.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

  • From whom, pray tell, other than Libtards committing voter fraud, is it "necessary to protect voting rights from?" Your own bitterness seems to have clouded your faculties as regards the requirement for equal protection of the laws throughout the United States, not just in places where Democrats engaged in slavery, founded the KKK, enacted Jim Crow laws, and fought tooth and nail to prevent passage of the Civil Rights Act. After all, their modern effort to enslave Black Americans in a Democrat-controlled, poverty riven underclass is not limited geographically, or even to one particular race.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 PM  

  • Dispite the author's remarkably unbiased coverage, Justice Scalia's analysis and reasoning is still apparent and absolutely flawless.

    The current implimentations of the Voting Rights Act are just as discriminatory and unconstitutional as are ratial quotas in admissions and employment.
    It's ok to discriminate providing you do so against the right group, people or religion. If it benefits liberalism and the destruction of the constitutional republic...it's all good.

    By Anonymous mp533, at 1:54 PM  

  • Did you say "lower orders of government?" I think you need to refresh your understanding of our system of government. The federal government is not the only form of government that does anything right. In fact, it often does things very poorly. It is probably hard for you to imagine that in this day and age of multimillionaire black basketball players, rap artists and movie stars that we have moved on from the 60's era of civil rights marches and pot festivals. We have moved on and so should you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:17 PM  

  • I've been reading a lot of US Supreme Court caselaw recently, and that last paragraph is right on the mark. I couldn't have put it better.

    Scalia is consistently on the wrong side of every battle. He has no place on the USSC.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home