Things We'd Like To See... Justice Scalia expound on "racial entitlement" to Desiline Victor, the 102-year-old Floridian who had to wait 3 hours to vote.
What could “racial entitlement to vote” possibly mean? Everyone who is an adult citizen (and not a felon?) is entitled to vote. The problem is that historically (and perhaps still today) certain groups were denied the right to vote, a right to which they were entitled. Would someone please explain to me what “racial entitlement to vote” means?
Antonin still can’t hold a candle to his lackey, “Clarence the Silent”. Specter made that confirmation process a lie and a circus, and Thomas has done nothing to dispel the fact that he’s probably the worst court appointment in history, either SCOTUS, or the lower courts.
From Lyle Denniston, of the National Constitutional Center:
. . .
Justice Scalia’s use of the phrase “racial entitlements” was his assessment of the provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that requires some state and local governments to get permission in Washington before they may put into effect any new election law or procedure. That duty was imposed on them by Congress, starting nearly a half-century ago, because those governments had persisted in denying the right to vote to minorities, and no other method seemed to work to put a stop to that.
From Justice Scalia’s perspective, that requirement is no longer needed, because he is persuaded that the condition that led to its passage no longer prevails, in the South or anywhere else in the country. But does it advance an agenda to strike down that law to suggest that the only reason Congress has repeatedly re-enacted it, with rising majorities, is that it was simply a politically popular law that remains intact only because it would be too risky to vote against it?
There may well be a difference, and a truly profound one, between passing an ordinary piece of legislation–say, adopting an increase in the highway speed limit because roads are better–and enacting a statute that seeks to enforce a constitutional right. The former is a matter of convenience, the latter may well be a matter of protecting human dignity. As long as a right remains in the Constitution (and Congress has never repealed a constitutional right), there may well be an abiding right to keep enforcing it.
A constitutional amendment passed with the noblest of motives may well become a nullity if its enforcement lapses. In fact, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were rendered almost completely useless in the decades after the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the “black codes” emerged amid waves of blatant racial hatred. In fact, even the courts joined in a process of turning those amendments into mere temporary “entitlements” that could be, in practice, withdrawn.
With a historical record like that, it may well be no surprise at all that Congress is unwilling to let a civil rights law be undone.
Considering the “Voter fraud” arguments used by conservatives, the Voting Rights act may have to be expanded! And Ima once again purposefully misses the point.
Of course not, you silly troll. The fault is the state and county officials who decide where polling places are located and how many voting stations are in each. When independent observers note that polling places in wealthy neighborhoods have short lines, while those in poorer neighborhoods have long lines, there is cause for suspicion that SOMONE is trying to suppress the vote in certain areas.
The issue of “States rights” was settled in the 1960’s when the law as first enacted. The question now is whether it is still necessary. When the law was recently extended the vote in Congress was overwhelming in both House and Senate (unanimous in the Senate). If the Court now says it knows better and somehow, Congress hasn’t noticed that “times have changed”, it would be an even greater case of judicial activism than “Citizens United”. And yet, people who call themselves conservative are OK with that, just because it backs up what they happen to want happen… like Republicans getting elected to office.Scalia’s comment was just trying to spin what they are up to, but seems to have backfired.
braindead Premium Member about 11 years ago
Time for Scalia to be the star at another Republican fund raiser.
lonecat about 11 years ago
What could “racial entitlement to vote” possibly mean? Everyone who is an adult citizen (and not a felon?) is entitled to vote. The problem is that historically (and perhaps still today) certain groups were denied the right to vote, a right to which they were entitled. Would someone please explain to me what “racial entitlement to vote” means?
Rickapolis about 11 years ago
Can’t we get Scalia to emulate the Pope and resign? One of our GREATEST embarrassments. A national disgrace.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Antonin still can’t hold a candle to his lackey, “Clarence the Silent”. Specter made that confirmation process a lie and a circus, and Thomas has done nothing to dispel the fact that he’s probably the worst court appointment in history, either SCOTUS, or the lower courts.
charliekane about 11 years ago
From Lyle Denniston, of the National Constitutional Center:
. . .
Justice Scalia’s use of the phrase “racial entitlements” was his assessment of the provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that requires some state and local governments to get permission in Washington before they may put into effect any new election law or procedure. That duty was imposed on them by Congress, starting nearly a half-century ago, because those governments had persisted in denying the right to vote to minorities, and no other method seemed to work to put a stop to that.
From Justice Scalia’s perspective, that requirement is no longer needed, because he is persuaded that the condition that led to its passage no longer prevails, in the South or anywhere else in the country. But does it advance an agenda to strike down that law to suggest that the only reason Congress has repeatedly re-enacted it, with rising majorities, is that it was simply a politically popular law that remains intact only because it would be too risky to vote against it?
There may well be a difference, and a truly profound one, between passing an ordinary piece of legislation–say, adopting an increase in the highway speed limit because roads are better–and enacting a statute that seeks to enforce a constitutional right. The former is a matter of convenience, the latter may well be a matter of protecting human dignity. As long as a right remains in the Constitution (and Congress has never repealed a constitutional right), there may well be an abiding right to keep enforcing it.
A constitutional amendment passed with the noblest of motives may well become a nullity if its enforcement lapses. In fact, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were rendered almost completely useless in the decades after the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the “black codes” emerged amid waves of blatant racial hatred. In fact, even the courts joined in a process of turning those amendments into mere temporary “entitlements” that could be, in practice, withdrawn.
With a historical record like that, it may well be no surprise at all that Congress is unwilling to let a civil rights law be undone.
MurphyHerself about 11 years ago
Just wondering; what happens when the white man is the minority?
edward thomas Premium Member about 11 years ago
Considering the “Voter fraud” arguments used by conservatives, the Voting Rights act may have to be expanded! And Ima once again purposefully misses the point.
PlainBill about 11 years ago
Of course not, you silly troll. The fault is the state and county officials who decide where polling places are located and how many voting stations are in each. When independent observers note that polling places in wealthy neighborhoods have short lines, while those in poorer neighborhoods have long lines, there is cause for suspicion that SOMONE is trying to suppress the vote in certain areas.
Yontrop about 11 years ago
The issue of “States rights” was settled in the 1960’s when the law as first enacted. The question now is whether it is still necessary. When the law was recently extended the vote in Congress was overwhelming in both House and Senate (unanimous in the Senate). If the Court now says it knows better and somehow, Congress hasn’t noticed that “times have changed”, it would be an even greater case of judicial activism than “Citizens United”. And yet, people who call themselves conservative are OK with that, just because it backs up what they happen to want happen… like Republicans getting elected to office.Scalia’s comment was just trying to spin what they are up to, but seems to have backfired.