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.
Do the imbeciles ever get tired of claiming everything is racist?
No they never do. Racism to me is a serious charge in the context of a nation that is built on immigration and diversity. All the OP does is show that he/she does not take it seriously by throwing out the accusation in the title and offering zero evidence, not even a quote, in the post.
I think Scalia needs to be impeached. I've never felt that way about a SCOTUS, but he needs to be removed from the bench. He's making a mockery of the judiciary.
I think Scalia needs to be impeached. I've never felt that way about a SCOTUS, but he needs to be removed from the bench. He's making a mockery of the judiciary.
Scalia is probably one of the worst Supreme court justices in decades. It's a shame because he appears to be a very bright guy, but he has no sense of fairness or integrity. I firmly believe he's corrupt to the core and has no desire to rule without personal biases.
Let's hope he isn't around for long. Anyone who would say something like that is obviously a bigot. It is because of the Civil Rights legislation that someone like me, a Black man, can vote in this nation. Before that, Blacks were basically being denied the right to vote in many states. Whites could register to vote easily in the South, while Blacks would be subjected to all kinds of "tests" and were basically being denied the right to vote. Segregation schools and other public facilities were the law of the land in many places. There was no such thing as "separate but equal". Blacks were given inferior facilities. Blacks were subjected to so much abuse under Jim Crow. CRA was meant to make sure that Blacks would not be subjected to unconstitutional abuses that were taking place.
Given all of that, why would someone say that the Civil Rights Act was "entitlement"? It would be because said person wants Blacks to be subjugated and subjected to the abuses of Jim Crow. Even further, this is about power and control over others. That is a big part of what the Jim Crow laws were about. It was about preventing Blacks from challenging White supremacy, it was about keeping Blacks in inferior schools and keeping them powerless, without a say in how things were run. It was about control.
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
Scalia is probably one of the worst Supreme court justices in decades. It's a shame because he appears to be a very bright guy, but he has no sense of fairness or integrity. I firmly believe he's corrupt to the core and has no desire to rule without personal biases.
Roberts, who is conservative is 100 times better.
I was a SCOTUS clerk back in ... well, back in the day. Let's just say that if the Court could be said to have a polarizing element, it is Antonin Scalia. He's gotten worse since I worked there. Now, he's regarded as an old eccentric scowling scab, even though he gets his own way sometimes. It's pathetic, really.
The Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of Racial Entitlement"? This is a Justice of our Supreme Court?
Scalia wonders why these uppity blacks think they should be voting.
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.
