Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He makes a very subjective, emotional statement on the subject:
"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement."
Umm....So what? What is the relevance of it being subjective? All opinions are subjective. And how is it an emotional statement? Other than you having an emotional reaction to the words "racial entitlement" when used in a context other than the one Scalia used, where's the emotion? If he said "I think this is attributable to a phenomenon that is called the Humpty Dumpty Effect" would it still be emotional? Because the phenomenon is the phenomenon regardless of what it is called. The phenomenon is one describing voting based on public perception of a what a law means rather than voting on what the law actually says. There's no emotional content whatsoever in that concept.
Umm....So what? What is the relevance of it being subjective? All opinions are subjective. And how is it an emotional statement? Other than you having an emotional reaction to the words "racial entitlement" when used in a context other than the one Scalia used, where's the emotion? If he said "I think this is attributable to a phenomenon that is called the Humpty Dumpty Effect" would it still be emotional? Because the phenomenon is the phenomenon regardless of what it is called. The phenomenon is one describing voting based on public perception of a what a law means rather than voting on what the law actually says. There's no emotional content whatsoever in that concept.
Mississippi is 37 percent black yet there hasn't been a single black statewide elected official in the entire state's history. That fact alone is enough evidence to keep the Voting Rights Act.
This thread is about voting rights.
Is the right to vote an entitlement in your opinion or not?
No it isn't about voting rights.
Nobody would ever accept a law saying "since blacks have been historically are more likely to commit violent crime, black people are not allowed to own guns"
But section 5 of the VRA says "since certain states have been historically discriminatory, they are no longer allowed to set their own election procedures the way other states are"
But it is now 50 years later and those certain states now have better voting records than some other states. In fact, one of those states now has the highest black turnout in the country.
That has nothing at all to do with any individual's right to vote. There are just a bunch of liberals on this thread steadfastly refusing to actually read the details. It's just "Republican involved, the words racial and entitlement used = automatic racism"
Mississippi is 37 percent black yet there hasn't been a single black statewide elected official in the entire state's history. That fact alone is enough evidence to keep the Voting Rights Act.
That's not what section 5 of the VRA is about. Read what is actually being challenged. All the state wants to do is get out from congressional over site (like the 40 other states). This challenge is actually about state equality and every states constitutional right to create voter rules.
Mississippi is 37 percent black yet there hasn't been a single black statewide elected official in the entire state's history. That fact alone is enough evidence to keep the Voting Rights Act.
No it isn't. "You could be racist, therefore you are racist" is not valid reasoning, and it is not sufficient justification for placing a state under restrictions that other states are not under.
They talk about the challenge at hand, the hearing is short, none of the justices would say Voting Rights Act Section 5, they all know, as well as the attorney's, what section is being considered. This is just the media grabbing a headline to demonize a republican.
Well they need to say specifically section 5, if that is what they were talking about. If that was not it, then obviously there is a problem.
Well they need to say specifically section 5, if that is what they were talking about. If that was not it, then obviously there is a problem.
They talk specifically about the challenge at hand (section 5). It is the way the legal system works. Every discussion is predicated on the briefs filed before hand. Just because it confuses you doesn't mean it's an issue.
They talk specifically about the challenge at hand (section 5). It is the way the legal system works. Every discussion is predicated on the briefs filed before hand. Just because it confuses you doesn't mean it's an issue.
Well, anyway, this is the way I see it. I don't want to see the VRA messed with. If that happens, in my opinion ,the implications of that won't be good. I view this from a matter of history.
Well, anyway, this is the way I see it. I don't want to see the VRA messed with. If that happens, in my opinion ,the implications of that won't be good. I view this from a matter of history.
All the other parts of the VRA will still be in place. What do you think the few states are going to do that other states, who don't fall under section, already do? All this does is make all the states equal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
