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.
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
It's the damn law that suggests certain races have a sense of entitlement and that's what Scalia said. It's not his opinion, he correctly said what the law does.
It's the damn law that suggests certain races have a sense of entitlement and that's what Scalia said. It's not his opinion, he correctly said what the law does.
Scalia has a tendency to wrap his musings in legal jargon. With this latest instance, people latch onto the term "racial entitlements" and assume he wants to do away with uppity minorities exercising their "entitlement" to vote.
What he is really saying is that the section 5 of the VRA, that requires certain states to say "Mother May I" to the Justice Dept. before enacting any changes to voting laws, will probably never be reversed by Congress because it would be unpopular to do so. No senator would want to be labeled a racist by voting to repeal that section, even if she felt it was no longer needed (whether it is indeed no longer needed is a separate debate altogether). So Scalia is asking if it then falls on the court to make that determination.
Here is Scalia's full quote
"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."
Section 5 of the VRA has turned into racial gerrymandering that only a handful of states must follow. So his comments actually apply to the topic at hand and are not racially driven. To scream racist every time someone talks about the issue shuts down the actually discussion and make the person screaming racist look silly.
Scalia credits "racial entitlement" for VRA. That is the whole point, expressed by the quote you keep repeating.
The Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of Racial Entitlement"? This is a Justice of our Supreme Court?
Uh, no. Continuing to vote for the Voting Rights Act simply because "Voting Rights" sounds good, without looking at what the act actually entails is an example of a phenomenon which is called "perpetuation of racial entitlement".
It's also called "judging a book by its cover"
It is a description of passing judgement based on the surface without looking at the details. Which is, incidentally, a perfect description of what you've just done.
Scalia credits "racial entitlement" for VRA. That is the whole point, expressed by the quote you keep repeating.
No, he says that section was needed at the time because of inequality. Now that things are equal, this portion of the law is no longer needed and that because is specifically was part of the bill to help a specific minority. He then says that congress will never get rid of it because of how it would make them look so they have no motivation to do what's right, just to do what gets them re elected.
So the court's job is to balance one area of the constition with another (states voting rights with non descrimination rights). So now that the discrimination as related to voting rights has been fixed, the violation of state voting rights is no longer applicable. It really is pretty simple and strait forward.
There is a large part of the population that thinks they are entitled to other peoples money. They don't give a rats ass how hard other people worked only for the government to take it away to pay for these lazy people. they don't give a rats ass how the people who worked for the money are doing without a better life to pay for these lazy people. And they are jealous of successful people. The people with the entitled mentality and the jealous voted Obama into office.
Yep, the entitlement mentality the enemy from within.
This thread is about voting rights.
Is the right to vote an entitlement in your opinion or not?
No, he says that section was needed at the time because of inequality. Now that things are equal, this portion of the law is no longer needed and that because is specifically was part of the bill to help a specific minority. He then says that congress will never get rid of it because of how it would make them look so they have no motivation to do what's right, just to do what gets them re elected.
So the court's job is to balance one area of the constition with another (states voting rights with non descrimination rights). So now that the discrimination as related to voting rights has been fixed, the violation of state voting rights is no longer applicable. It really is pretty simple and strait forward.
No, he says that section was needed at the time because of inequality. Now that things are equal, this portion of the law is no longer needed and that because is specifically was part of the bill to help a specific minority. He then says that congress will never get rid of it because of how it would make them look so they have no motivation to do what's right, just to do what gets them re elected.
So the court's job is to balance one area of the constition with another (states voting rights with non descrimination rights). So now that the discrimination as related to voting rights has been fixed, the violation of state voting rights is no longer applicable. It really is pretty simple and strait forward.
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."
For voting they are. Congress no longer needs to oversee voter rules in a select few states. Even the court acknowledged that Massachusetts is the worst state for black voting but it is not covered in section 5.
"Probing questions from Roberts and Kennedy made it appear that the die was cast for Section 5. Roberts went so far as to note that Massachusetts now has the worst black turnout in elections compared with whites — and Mississippi, the best."
This was put in place to prevent things like poll taxes. This provision is no longer needed. USA TODAY
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.
