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.
You have completely misrepresented Scalia. He suggests that everyone is impacted. He pointed out that everyone in the Senate voted FOR the law as did the vast majority of the House.
Nothing in Scalia's comments suggests he believes "blacks" have any attitude about anything at all.
That was neither the content, nor the context of the comment.
It would be nice for us to talk about what the man said and now what we want other people to think he said.
Maybe people should read the whole quote, I posted this earlier in the thread, but most people just read the OP and act like they know what they are talking about and skip the pages of discourse that have already covered the topic
"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."
Maybe people should read the whole quote, I posted this earlier in the thread, but most people just read the OP and act like they know what they are talking about and skip the pages of discourse that have already covered the topic
"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."
Practically confirms the point made in the OP, with his personal view on the subject. He clearly sees Voting Rights as a racial entitlement issue.
Practically confirms the point made in the OP, with his personal view on the subject. He clearly sees Voting Rights as a racial entitlement issue.
Here is the OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob
The Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of Racial Entitlement"? This is a Justice of our Supreme Court?
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.
The Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of Racial Entitlement"? This is a Justice of our Supreme Court?
Scalia is pretty bad, crazy, nut job. He seems racist and a homophobe, and then attempts to use his intelligence (he is smart) to justify himself being a racist and a homophobe and its really your problem not his.
Supreme Court Justices for life. . .thats crap. especially when you get a mentally deranged one
Scalia is pretty bad, crazy, nut job. He seems racist and a homophobe, and then attempts to use his intelligence (he is smart) to justify himself being a racist and a homophobe and its really your problem not his.
Supreme Court Justices for life. . .thats crap. especially when you get a mentally deranged one
How about presenting evidence to that end, but please read the rest of the thread first to save us some time.
so it is partisan to suggest that:
1. When you have some law that has to do with race, that even after the law has past its usefulness, no one will vote to get rid of the law for fear of reprisal?
2. That it might not be appropreate to continue to treat various states differently even when there is no longer a valid reason to do so?
This is partisan? Hmmmm. Lets also point out that the Justice points out that the voting on the issue itself has been bi-partisian in the extreme...
I dont follow.
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
I think some people are getting spooked because the 2012 results and the trends that they represent are too shocking for them.
That said, any attempts at dismantling parts of the Voting Rights Act will be resisted.
Their is nothing to resist at this point, it has to pass constitutional muster, weather you like it or not. We will know that answer before September.
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.
