Here is the third article in our Republicans on Parade series, featuring individuals who personify what the Republican Party has become. Today’s honoree is Injustice Antonin Scalia, because he prefers his own racist view, in support of the Republican War on Minorities, to the law, as set by the US Constitution.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act, which gave African Americans in the Deep South access to the ballot box, is a “racial entitlement,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday as the court hear oral arguments in a legal challenge to the landmark law from the state of Alabama.
The outspoken, ultraconservative Scalia discounted the fact that Congress has repeatedly reenacted the law — most recently by a 99-0 Senate vote in 2006 — and argued that its renewal is “not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia describes Voting Rights Act as a "racial entitlement"
“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said. “They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future? I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity.
“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through normal political processes.”
The case of Shelby County vs. Holder is a challenge to the landmark Section 5 of the act. It requires nine states (eight in the South) as well as local governments in other states to “pre-clear” changes in voting procedures with the U.S. Department of Justice. The act has been invoked as recently as the 2012 election, in which several state legislatures made rules changes designed to impede early voting… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Seattle PI>
Photo credit: Plutocrap
Both Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow devoted multiple segments to cover this outrage in detail.
Ed 1:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Ed 2:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel 1:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel 2:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I hove no doubt that Republicans will complain that all the abuses that originally occasioned the Voting Rights Act were perpetrated by Democrats. That is true. The Dixiecrats were indeed Democrats, but when the Democratic Party pushed the Voting Rights Act through Congress, those same Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party and have now become the Republican base.
I agree with the experts that, if Section 5 is overturned, the Voting Rights Act will become altogether reactive, because it is Section 5 that makes it proactive in those places with a history of racial abuse of voting rights. Arizona is not covered by Section 5. The appeals court overturned their anti-Latino plan that created four new white dominated districts, when all the population growth that caused the state to gain those four seats was Latino. The court sent it back to the state with instructions to redo it, but since the election was so close, Arizona was able to hold the 2012 elections using the overturned plan. If anything, Section 5 needs to be expanded to everywhere that Republicans are attacking the right to vote of minorities, students, seniors, and anyone else that is likely to vote for Democrats.
I also agree that Herr Scalia’s view that being allowed to vote is a “racial entitlement” could not be a more racist statement.
I also agree that the Constitution guarantees the right to vote, but there is one point everyone seems to have missed. Herr Scalia said that voting rights is “not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. The experts said that Congress has renewed it several times. What does the Constitution actually have to say about that?
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Constitution says it’s exactly the kind of question you can leave to Congress. It could not be more clear that Scalia opposes the US Constitution, as he helps the Republican party goose-step back to the 19th century.
15 Responses to “Republicans on Parade–2/28/2013”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Actually, I think "racial entitlement" was the reason for the Voting Rights Act.
The problem is that Scalia agrees with the people who were in power back then that think just one race is entitled to vote – and it only comes in white.
Excellent point, Nameless!
Appalling comments from a man with a long history of appalling words and acts ; A backward man – in a job that is beyond his capabilities or understanding—
Phyllis, I fully agree.
It's appalling that he used those words in his opinion — blatant racism and bigotry — I was reslly shocked – and coming from Scalia – that's hard to do – now explain why Thomas loves this scrote so much?
Lee, for Thomas, consider the word oreo.
To me it seems unethical for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia using his position to Dictate policy via the court…
It is the epitome of judicial activism, which Republicans dishonestly claim to oppose.
Excellent research TC. When I started reading, I thought "there goes Injustice Scalia being an activist again!" and from that perspective I was not disappointed. But to say that Scalia, a judge in the highest court, unelected, and only out of the job if he is impeached (fat chance on that one!) or dies, or chooses to retire, is a disappointment to me is a gross understatement! Something is definitely rotten in Denmark! Racial entitlement my ass!
I agree with Dr James Peterson — why should Shelby County, Alabama be so concerned about getting rid of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 IF they are doing everything correctly? It should not bother them. Shortly after that, Karen Finney made the comment that some states that are not subject to section 5 probably should be after the shenanigans of 2012. And I certainly can't dispute that. This is where a federal election commission that does all the administration of federal elections, the districting, the counting, registration etc really comes in. It would create a level playing field, ideally without partisan interference from any party.
Rev Al Sharpton — "…Jim Crow's son, James Crow Jr Esquire is still trying to do what his daddy did and that's robbing us of the right to vote." quoting voter ID regulations, long lineups, ending early voting, stopping sunday at the polls in 2012 as reasons. It was humourous in his words, but deadly accurate.
And for Injustice Scalia to in essence say that Congress doesn't know what it is doing is a slap in the face. This pudgy, non-sensical, bigoted little Injustice is trying to play god and he can't be allowed to do that. I have a question — in the picture, is that a real podium that he is speaking at or was it photoshopped? If it is real, in my mind, it is conclusive (along with other incidents) that Scalia should be removed from the bench. He has demonstrated that he can no longer remain imparial. Hell, I was commenting on another thread and had looked up the constitution, specifically a number of amendments (XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI) and they all have that clause "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Scalia, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and determine the veracity of arguments as to meeting the constitutional challenge, is very lacking of his understanding and knowledge.
He must NOT BE ALLOWED to drag the country back to the 17th century!
Thanks Lynn. I fully agree.
Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, and that was in 1805. He was accused of letting his federalist beliefs influence his rulings (sound familiar?). It certainly seems that Scalia is doing the same, but it is unlikely he will ever be called to account for it unless the political make-up of Congress changes significantly. Sadly (in this case) the articles of impeachment must be presented in the House of Representatives. Enough said.
When Democrats take back the House in 2014 (I hope, I hope, I hope!), the first order of business should be to impeach Injustice Scalia, assuming of course that there is not statute of limitations on his perfidy!
I agree with what Lynn said. Thge difficulties, of course, are that to take the House we need to win by 7% or more, and that conviction in the Senate requires 67 votes.
I was watching The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart last night and Rachel Maddow was on. She just happened to be at the SCOTUS hearing when Scalia uttered his racial pronouncements.
All she had to say about it was she thinks he is a troll and des these stupid things to anger the opposition. She said it almost seemed choreographed.
Odd?
Not at all odd, Patty. What is more choreographed than goose-stepping.