Scalia Keeping It Real

[sfcalifornia]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

That's just what the Voting Rights Act ensures.

It's a law designed to ensure the same law is applied to all.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is why Supreme Court judges have lifetime tenure. Scalia is right on. The screams you hear are pigs getting stuck.
Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia?s ?racial entitlement? argument | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Civil rights leaders are up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's skeptical questions about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that brought an end to Jim Crow-era racial discrimination at the polls in the South.

In oral arguments over the law on Wednesday, Scalia, a stalwart of the court's conservative wing, suggested that the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly reauthorized in 2006 by Congress because the nation's politicians were afraid to oppose a "racial entitlement."

Scalia said that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in the past 50 years, more and more senators supported it, even though the problem of racial discrimination at the polls has decreased over that time. "Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this," he said. "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."

More at the source.

You and Scalia will be the first ones begging for "racial entitlements" once whites become a minority.

Whoahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

PERFECT example!!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

This is why Supreme Court judges have lifetime tenure. Scalia is right on. The screams you hear are pigs getting stuck.
Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia?s ?racial entitlement? argument | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Civil rights leaders are up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's skeptical questions about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that brought an end to Jim Crow-era racial discrimination at the polls in the South.

In oral arguments over the law on Wednesday, Scalia, a stalwart of the court's conservative wing, suggested that the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly reauthorized in 2006 by Congress because the nation's politicians were afraid to oppose a "racial entitlement."

Scalia said that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in the past 50 years, more and more senators supported it, even though the problem of racial discrimination at the polls has decreased over that time. "Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this," he said. "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."

More at the source.

yeah baby that will win the republican party some of those votes of color huh

 

[Truthmatters]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

yes it should.

Then we had states who did all sorts of reprehensible things to keep certain people in their states from being able to vote by creating silly laws that ONLY applied to certain voters.


The day all of the evil brain damaged racists in our midst die a natrual death then we can rest assured we dont need laws like this anymore.


Until then I suggest to the court that they strike the part that makes only a few states beholden to these laws and make all our country have to get permission to change laws like these.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree with Scalias questions of whether the situation on the ground warrants continuing the Voting Rights Act. We are not the same country as 1964

I find his use of the term "racial entitlement" to be offensive. The right to vote is universal to all and was being denied on the basis of race. It was not a racial entitlement to vote

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

That's just what the Voting Rights Act ensures.

It's a law designed to ensure the same law is applied to all.

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

 

[The Rabbi]

You realize citizens and states aren't the same thing, right?

You realize it doesn't matter, right?
Equal footing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No that's exactly the issue at hand.
Fail.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I agree with Scalias questions of whether the situation on the ground warrants continuing the Voting Rights Act. We are not the same country as 1964.

'Tis true!!!

News travels.....

....MUCH FASTER, NOW!!!!!!

​

 

[The Rabbi]

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

You understand that isnt an answer to his question, right?
And i the link I posted it shows that the gov't must accord states equal treatment, save extreme circumstances. We are not in extreme circumstances in regard to voting rights. Therefore the legislation should be overturned.

So you say. If you showed up and your ID was refused, and or you had to wait 7 hours in line you might feel differently.

If your health insurance was cancelled you'd feel differently too.
WTF?
That has nothing to do with this discussion. All states must be treated on an equal footing. That's the Constitution. The fact that some states require "pre-clearance" for their voting regs while others don't violates that principle. During the Civil Rights movement one could make the argument that some states needed adult supervision because of voting patterns in their states. That argument cannot be made any longer as MS has the highest turnout of black voters and is subject to pre clearance while MA has the lowest and is not.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

That's just what the Voting Rights Act ensures.

It's a law designed to ensure the same law is applied to all.

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

I'm sure you can provide the exact-quote you're referring-to!!!

GO!!!!!


<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excuse me, are the states not comprised of people? Are you saying the federal government has the right to treat the people in the various states differently from other states. You do understand the concept of a republican form of government*, don't you?

*Interesting question there Tex. A State is guaranted a Republican Form of government in the Constituion (Art. 4, Sec. 4) yet the Federal Government can nullify laws enacted by a City Councel or State Legislature under Judicial Review.

The VRA which is the subject of the thread empowers the AG office to bypass judicial review and unilaterally set aside a law properly passed by a state. A prime example as to how this power is used as a political weapon is when AG Holder waited 2 years till just prior to the elections to set aside the TX voter ID law, where that decision couldn't be challenged in the courts prior to the election. The same law has been upheld by SCOTUS in other states and I'm sure TX will prevail in their challenge, but at what cost?

And Texas went for the Dems? Grow up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

Just like our ancestors in the South applied the laws fairly to all?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

That's just what the Voting Rights Act ensures.

It's a law designed to ensure the same law is applied to all.

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

What a "myfacts" statement. Give us evidence, please.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's just what the Voting Rights Act ensures.

It's a law designed to ensure the same law is applied to all.

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

What a "myfacts" statement. Give us evidence, please.

Tell you what. Because when he supplies evidence one of two things will happen. Either you will find something in the source to dismiss it as "right wing propaganda" or you will punk out and leave the discussion.
So tell us what evidence you would accept first and then we'll supply it. This is well known information btw.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

What a "myfacts" statement. Give us evidence, please.

Tell you what. Because when he supplies evidence one of two things will happen. Either you will find something in the source to dismiss it as "right wing propaganda" or you will punk out and leave the discussion.
So tell us what evidence you would accept first and then we'll supply it. This is well known information btw.

I would like to see evidence too

I suspect it is just another statement being taken grossly out of context

 

[Spoonman]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

It is possible to take an unconstitutional voting law to court without the Voting Rights Act.

And how do we know this?

Because states that are not subject to the Act have done so.

The Voting Rights Act achieved what it was meant to achieve. It is time to celebrate it and put it to bed.

Bull-looney, Did you not see the efforts to suppress the vote in last year's election? Are you in denial or do you choose to lie by omission?

how is this taking away their right to vote?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is possible to take an unconstitutional voting law to court without the Voting Rights Act.

And how do we know this?

Because states that are not subject to the Act have done so.

The Voting Rights Act achieved what it was meant to achieve. It is time to celebrate it and put it to bed.

Bull-looney, Did you not see the efforts to suppress the vote in last year's election? Are you in denial or do you choose to lie by omission?

how is this taking away their right to vote?

Huh?

 

[Polk]

You realize it doesn't matter, right?
Equal footing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

No that's exactly the issue at hand.
Fail.

It's not the issue at hand, since:
1. Nothing in this case has to do with admission of new states to the Union.
2. Six of the states, in whole or part, the VRA applies to were among the original thirteen.

 

[Polk]

Also waiting for the rock-ribbed "constitutionalists" to explain how they're able to write the 15th Amendment out of the document.

 

[Spoonman]

Bull-looney, Did you not see the efforts to suppress the vote in last year's election? Are you in denial or do you choose to lie by omission?

how is this taking away their right to vote?

Huh?

simple question. how does this take away their right to vote?