{"id":10047,"date":"2013-02-28T05:17:06","date_gmt":"2013-02-28T13:17:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=10047"},"modified":"2013-02-28T05:17:06","modified_gmt":"2013-02-28T13:17:06","slug":"republicans-on-parade2282013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2013\/02\/28\/republicans-on-parade2282013\/","title":{"rendered":"Republicans on Parade–2\/28\/2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the third article in our Republicans on Parade series, featuring individuals who personify what the Republican Party has become.  Today\u2019s 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.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"28scalia\"The 1965 Voting Rights Act, which gave African Americans in the Deep South access to the ballot box, is a \u201cracial entitlement,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

The outspoken, ultraconservative Scalia discounted the fact that Congress has repeatedly reenacted the law \u2014 most recently by a 99-0 Senate vote in 2006 \u2014 and argued that its renewal is \u201cnot the kind of question you can leave to Congress<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia describes Voting Rights Act as a "racial entitlement<\/strong>"<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act,\u201d Scalia said.  \u201cThey are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.  Even the name of it is wonderful \u2014 the Voting Rights Act.  Who is going to vote against that in the future? I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through normal political processes<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u201cpre-clear\u201d changes in voting procedures with the U.S. Department of Justice.  The act has been invoked as recently as the 2012 election<\/strong>, in which several state legislatures made rules changes designed to impede early voting\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Seattle PI<\/a>><\/p>\n

Photo credit: Plutocrap<\/a><\/font><\/p>\n

Both Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow devoted multiple segments to cover this outrage in detail.<\/font><\/p>\n

Ed 1:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/font> <\/p>\n

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news<\/a>, world news<\/a>, and news about the economy<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ed 2:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/font> <\/p>\n

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news<\/a>, world news<\/a>, and news about the economy<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Rachel 1:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/font> <\/p>\n

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news<\/a>, world news<\/a>, and news about the economy<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Rachel 2:<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/embed><\/object><\/font> <\/p>\n

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news<\/a>, world news<\/a>, and news about the economy<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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.<\/font><\/p>\n

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.<\/font><\/p>\n

I also agree that Herr Scalia\u2019s view that being allowed to vote is a \u201cracial entitlement\u201d could not be a more racist statement.<\/font><\/p>\n

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 \u201cnot the kind of question you can leave to Congress.  The experts said that Congress has renewed it several times.  What does the Constitution<\/a> actually have to say about that?<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

Amendment XV<\/strong><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Section 1.<\/strong><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/font><\/p>\n

Section 2.<\/strong><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Constitution says it\u2019s 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.<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the third article in our Republicans on Parade series, featuring individuals who personify what the Republican Party has become.  Today\u2019s 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 […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}