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.
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.
What do you think they would do? After hearing some things from Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer, it makes me wonder about the state government sometimes.
It's highly partisan to suggest that certain races have a sense of entitlement.
Scalia doesn't understand that a judge must be impartial. His job is to interpret the law, not to inject his own beliefs.
He's a smart guy, but a horrendous judge. He is better suited to be a consultant or scholar
Don, how many times does this have to be said?
Scalia didn't SAY certain races have a sense of entitlement! Read the WORDS.
I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about.
Scalia was not calling anything, anything. He did not coin the phrase. He was repeating something that had been written about, I presume, in scholarly legal documents.
He was NOT saying that certain people believe they are entitled. He was saying that CONGRESS had created certain entitlements and now congress will not remove them even when there is indication that they are no longer valid. He is saying that congress CANNOT vote to remove those things because there is no benefit to the individual congressman.
Scalia is saying that such a thing must be looked at by the judiciary when the law itself creates an imbalance in how the federal government deals with the various states.
NOTHING in what he said suggests that he thinks any group of people believes they have a racial entitlement. NOTHING.
The Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of Racial Entitlement"? This is a Justice of our Supreme Court?
The great thing about the Constitution is that IT is perpetual. Jutices have an expiration date.
VRA is not on trial, sec 5 is being discussed. Even If Scalia and a majority of the Justices rule in favor of the States under sec 5, The VRA will still be viable.
So no one actually knows what the case is actually about I'll explain it. Maybe then people can at least understand what is happening before passing judgment.
The only part of VRA that is being challenged is section 5. The rest is not being challenged. Section 5 assigned certain states voters rules have to be pre approved by congress instead of the state making the decision, this was because of prejudice at the time against minority voting. So now the states have got their act together and no longer want to be under congress, like the rest of the states.
So they are challenging that the specific section 5 is unconstitutional because it creates different rules for different states. From the Shelby County argument : SCOTUSblog
Here is the whole quote, because that is actually important
“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 re-enacted 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. That’s the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have. It’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress
The problem with his logic is that either Congress has the power to enforce section 5 of the voting rights act or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. In fifty years it has not been ruled unconstitutional. A Justice who complains about judicial activism shouldn't be overturning a law dutifully passed by congress unless it is unconstitutional, even if he doesn't like the fact that congress continues to renew it.
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.
