Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Racism Reaches the Levels of Government via Scalia’s Voting Rights Comments
An entitlement is guaranteed access to benefits based on established rights or legislation and a right is itself an entitlement associated with moral or social principles to the extent that an entitlement is made in accordance with a society’s legal framework. Typically, entitlements based on rights are founded on the concept of social equality or enfranchisement, but over the past four years Republicans gave the term entitlement a pejorative connotation referring to the notion an undeserving person believes they are owed a particular benefit without cause. Yesterday, a legal advocate for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Koch brothers cemented his position as a high-ranking Republican by using entitlement in a racially depreciatory context typical of extremist conservatives and it is a sign that racial bigotry permeates the highest levels of government.
Yesterday the Supreme Court began hearing arguments for why or why not, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) should be upheld. Section 5 stipulates that nine states, mostly in the South, would be free to change voting procedures after first getting permission from federal officials, and it incited Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to say that the landmark civil rights law amounted to “a perpetuation of racial entitlement.” For Scalia to claim the VRA is a perpetuation of racial entitlement, especially “perpetuation,” really means there was never a need for the Act to protect African Americans right to vote, and that they are getting an undeserved benefit. Americans at one time took pride that the right to vote extended to all citizens, including African Americans, because the right to vote is not an “entitlement” they do not deserve, but a fundamental right guaranteed by the law.
The last election revealed that in many Republican-controlled states the right to vote was being curtailed to disenfranchise African American voters using ALEC template legislation aimed at suppressing Democratic votes. The High Court’s Chief Justice, John Roberts, incredulously asked whether “the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North,” and the answer is most likely yes, and it brings up an important point. The question the Court should be considering is not whether the VRA should be struck down, but should it be expanded to cover any state under Republican and ALEC’s control.
ALEC was instrumental in providing Republican-controlled states template legislation to disenfranchise disabled, low-income, elderly, people-of-color, and student voters who move frequently or do not drive by requiring all voters to show state-issued voter ID at the polls even though traditionally, counties accepted other residency proof without any significant problems. ALEC and the Koch brothers are staunch advocates of state’s rights that will allow Republicans to disqualify African American voters with impunity from the Federal authorities if the Supreme Court rules in favor of ALEC, the Kochs, and Republican attempts to rig and steal elections. Justice Scalia has close ties to the Koch brothers who are intricately connected to ALEC and it is not surprising he considers it an unearned entitlement for African Americans to have the right to vote freely because they typically vote for Democrats.
Scalia considers himself a constitutional originalist who has no regard for the Constitution as a living document that must be updated according to the necessities of the time such as African Americans having the right to vote, or being protected from racial barriers to voting that were not in the original document. For a renowned constitutional scholar, Scalia should be familiar with the Ninth Amendment that says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and it addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but are implied, or amended to include rights such as whether African Americans, as legal citizens of the United States, have the right to vote. Scalia’s despicable comment that the Voting Rights Act was a “perpetuation” of racial entitlement was perfectly normal in his mind; however, the idea that the Voting Rights Act granted African Americans special benefits at the polls was beyond the pale. Section 5 prohibited states from enacting laws that prevent African Americans from exercising their legal right to vote without special requirements such as ALEC’s voter ID and suppression laws being implemented in Republican-controlled states in Southern and Northern states.
Scalia’s comment was racially motivated to be sure, but he is setting the stage for casting his vote to strike down Section 5 of the VRA, and it is likely he and the corporate arm of the High Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) would strike down the entire VRA to deny the right to vote to people of color to prevent Democrats from winning elections if they thought they could get away with it. Scalia and Clarence Thomas have long-standing ties to the Koch brothers, ALEC, American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation who support state’s rights to disenfranchise Democratic voters, and will go to any lengths to guarantee Republican victories in state and federal elections. However, one never imagined Scalia would openly declare his racism and disdain for the most basic of rights in an open and free democracy, but then again it is Antonin Scalia. He has spent the past four years openly campaigning for Republican causes and it is but one reason he is the least qualified man in America to decide the constitutionality of something as basic, and important, as the right to vote. Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, but with Scalia it amounts to a “perpetuation of corporate entitlement” that ALEC, the Koch brothers, and Republicans will benefit from until the Supreme Court’s corporate wing dies or retires.
Jon Stewart used the behavior of Republicans in 2012 to explain why the Voting Rights Act should be expa ...
The Supreme Court heard arguments that will determine whether the court will uphold the Voting Rights Act ...
On The Daily Show, Rachel Maddow had a classic line when she labeled Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scali ...
A Romney presidency would make detrimental changes to America that extend beyond his plan to resurrect Bus ...
There are myriad opinions on whether or not America is a democracy, a republic, or a representative demo ...
ester anderson
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 10:00 am
Scalia is a Republican in the pockets of the Koch Brothers and will do what they say, it’s a sad state when you can’t even trust the SCOTUS to do the right thing under the Constitution
Reynardine
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 10:01 am
This does *not* feel good.
Barry Roope
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 10:19 am
Scalia is a racist, pure and simple. He will be the Corporate shrill, he has always been. If he thinks Voting is an entitlement, his understanding of America, and what she represents is completely wrong. He has now shown to anyone that cares to know, that he his a racist, and does not care who knows. Pretty sad that America’s highest court has a person with his views being made into law. Hopefully President Obama has the opportunity to nominate a couple of true legal scholars in the next 4 years, to counter Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Mel
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Again, no one reads the part where his statement was ONLY adressing amendment 5 of the VRA. Ammendment 5 makes it HARDER to change laws in states where fraud is present. Even the insy winsy slightest change requires federal approval which can take up to a year. Scalia wants EQUAL treatment of states and you BUTTWIPES call that racist??? Off your rockers!
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
No Scalia does not want equal treatment under the law for whom he thinks are inferior be it VRA or any of his rulings in the past.Just because he is not wearing a white robe, make no mistake what his intentions are.And whats sad is you dont even realize you will be next and that skin color you think will protect you unless you are in the upper class then you will be in the same boat I am in.Remember corporations are people too
Reynardine
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
By frothing at the mouth and calling us all buttwipes, you’ll persuade us all to your views, I’m sure
majii
Mar. 1st, 2013 at 1:01 am
Keep believing that sh*t if you want to, and I hope you don’t have a female relative living in the U.S. because some republicans have already begun to make noise about women not being allowed to vote. Once some of us sit idly by and watch as the rights of others are taken, it’s only a matter of time before it’s our rights that they’re coming for.
Robert Chapman
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 7:32 am
Scalia did not say voting is an entitlement.
The US Constitution places the regulation of voting in the hands of the states. The Voting Rights Act establishes 15th Amendment grounds for the federal government to supercede the states regulations regarding voters in several states and numerous counties.
Scalia asked whether the current administration of this law is fair or whether it is being used to advantage certain political groups. It is a fair question.
It is what Scalia whether Scalia thinks the fifteenth amendment should be enforced that is in doubt.
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 8:24 am
True about states having the power of regulating elections but you left out a tiny detail (but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators)Section 4. Clause 1
So.and I am not a constitutional scholar ,that clause right there makes the voting rights act constitutional and the case that is before it should be laugh out of court.Correct me if I am reading wrong or where the case does have standing
haterpatrol
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 10:26 am
Have a myocardio infarct already, past time to replace u Guy (and 3 others also)
UncaJoe
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 10:38 am
If only purchasing a firearm had as many obstructions as casting a vote there would far fewer problems with gun violence… and vice versa.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 10:56 am
What can one say?That’s racist?We need term limits?Uncle Thomas needs to take the handkerchief off his head? I dont know but this:Today its us thats under attack.Tomorrow you will be next.That is all
Johbbad
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 11:23 am
I would wish you people go to a VA Hospital and look at h ow many minorities are in there who fought for all of our rights. While you sit there calling names, degrading people, and trying to strip them of their basic rights as Americans. The way this country is going to survive is if we all stick together as a country. We all live breathe and bleed the same way and the sooner you realize that the better off the country will be.
You are pissed off President Obama won a second term and now you will try to ruin the country just to prove you are right that a minority could not run a country let alone the most powerful country in the World.
Time to wake up before it is to late.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 11:43 am
I want to apologize to you for my comment.I deleted it and I am sorry.
Reynardine
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 11:29 am
If he were on any lower bench, he could be required to recuse himself. On the U.S. Supreme Court, he cannot be made to do it, not even by the other justices, nor would any decision coming from be overturned, save by a later and differently constituted court. Plessy took over half a century to mitigate, and it was not exactly overturned. Until the House is differently constituted, there is little chance of his removal by impeachment, either.
TigerLily
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Shocking! Just fricken shocking these republicans and RW SCJ. Are you telling me there are 50% of our population who agree with this monster and sorry excuse of a man and with the RW who has been trying to take yoru right to vote away in 2013!!!! To take away a basic right that people fought and died for to achieve? My gawd! Are you kidding me? These people are literally taking us backwards. What next… restaurants ..bathrooms..theaters.. only for WHITES again Scalia? WTH? They are doing everything in their power to STEAL EVERY ELECTION AFTER THIS. Make sure no people of color ever vote again because dam them they always vote DEMOCRATIC. Where the hell are our democratic leaders ..and why aren’t they yelling at the top their lungs at these blatant literal raping of our right to vote! WTH?
The Platzner Post
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
What the hell is Judge Scalia thinking???
Sharing on The Platzner Post Facebook www.facebook.com/ThePlatz..., and Twitter twitter.com/ThePlatznerPo....
gsb
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Plantzner, its obvious he does not think,his head is full of self deception,and Rep,talking points. This man is so low he does not belong on the court.
Reynardine
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 11:42 pm
Oh, Hell, he’s so low he could walk bolt upright under a maggot
harleyblueswoman
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
This guy is old and senile and racist….he needs to retire!! We do not need people like him on our Supreme Court!!! Get rid of him!!
buckeyewill
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
This is one of the reasons why I voted for Obama despite some of his positions. I was angry that the Tea Party was declaring war on Voting Rights all over the country. I wanted a President who respects the fight people in America waged to bring positive change. I don’t think the VRA will be struck down, but Section 5 will be weaken.
Robert Chapman
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 7:26 am
It is hard to say what the outcome of the current litigation will be.
Google the VRA, on nearly every web-site on the topic, the content declares that complaints have dropped markedly.
Maybe things actually are getting better regarding voting rights in this country.
vwjan
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Is anyone really surprised that he said that? I am hoping that we will win in the end, but who knows. It is time to get rid of the Repigs in the house so that Obama is able to name someone with common sense to the court. I think the justices that are really ready to retire are waiting for this to happen………..
Cheryl
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
The Republicans and teabaggers constantly scream about their rights being taken away.Well what about everyone elses rights. I guess we have none when it comes to them making laws. They want to do away with VRA, abortion, and violence against women, and health care. So where are our rights!! If the SCOTUS declares the VRA unconstitutional that is gonna send a really bad message to the right-wingers that they can surpress anyone they don’t agree with. The Constitution is a living document, it has to change with the times, otherwise we would still be stuck in 1776. Its high time that the Court catch up with the times and the will of the people. This would be the biggest mistake any SCOTUS could ever make. The Rep. constantly want to impeach Obama, well I believe its time to impeach these idiots from office.
Sherlock
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
Scalia is an EVIL Republican prick. Nothing he says or does surprises me.
Thomas and Scalia are an embarrassment to everything this country stands for–
JJM
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I simply fail to comprehend his comment. What exactly does he mean by “racial entitlement”?
Can anyone enlighten me? It’s a very peculiar concept, and I for one cannot understand it.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
I know but I cant put it in words what he meant but this from the RUMPROAST sums it up:The problem with straight white male male privilege is that it is invisible to its beneficiaries. Straight white males tend to think of themselves as the “default setting” for humanity. Because they are largely free from discrimination (it has to be noted that most attacks on white male privilege are conducted by white males from a higher socioeconomic stratum), straight white males often believe that members of minority groups are similarly unaffected by discrimination, which leads the straight white males to view any protections extended to minority groups as “perpetuation of racial entitlement”.
Go read the whole thing
www.rumproast.com/index.p...
Reynardine
Mar. 1st, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Through your link, I was able to find another which discussed Justitute Scalia’s childhood. It appears his father sent him to a special military school where the boys all pledged allegiance to… Mussolini. Yes, here in the USA. It appears Daddy was a honcho in some kind of Italian-American Fascist organization.It appears the son learned well.
Robert Chapman
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 7:22 am
Everyone thinks his in group is the default setting for humanity, that is not a unique failing of straight white males. Nor is it Mr. Justice Scalia’s failing in this instance.
Mr. Scalia asked a question of an attorney arguing before his bench. The question might be a clue about Justice Scalia’s thinking, or it might be a question.
Until Justice Scalia writes his opinion on the case we do not know which it is.
But, Antonin Scalia pushes the law as far toward his own individual moral code as far as he can. He is hardly a strict constructionist.
Reynardine
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 8:12 am
No: it is the position of whoever is the socially dominant group in a culture, and in ours, that *is* straight, white, culturally Christian males. Any woman knows she is not the default position from the time she is twelve, if not much earlier. In this society, so does any black person, any Jew, any Muslim, and most Hispanics outside Dade County. You could never have made such a stupid statement if you were not yourself suffering from privilege-induced cultural blindness.
Robert Chapman
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 7:17 am
The fifteenth amendment of the US Constitution was passed to assure former African-American slaves and their descendants the right to vote.
Giving Mr. Justice Scalia the benefit of the doubt, one can infer that he thinks the expansive language of the 15th amendment was somehow limited to cover former slaves only. In other words, the authors of Jim Crow laws would use inocuous language to describe the people, former slaves and their descendants, who they were trying to disenfranchise.
Pursuing this argument, and building on Justice Scalia’s remarks, one might say, the 15th amendment served its purpose and its expansive language should not be used to extend the protection of voting rights to groups who are burdened with unduly restrictive voter qualifications today.
Such an expansion of the protections of the 15th amendment beyond the context of reconstruction and Jim Crow creates protected classes and a new form of entitlement to federal benefits, in this case federal review of voter eligibility requirements.
The rebuttal I would offer to such a statement is that this is perhaps a fine theory for the interpretation of statutory law, but as the legal doctrine under consideration stem directly from a constitutional amendment SCOTUS should defer to the constitution and to the Congress and uphold the Voting Rights Act.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 3:28 pm
I do not think that Justice Scalia has ever understood what his position was. Is a supreme court justice supposedly. I’m not sure he ever understood the reason that we have a supreme court. This is not a place, at least in my opinion, to be a Republican or a Democrat. It most certainly is in a place to be a shill for the Koch brothers which he is most certainly doing.
The problem with the Supreme Court being a political entity is that justice Roberts as a head justice has to refuse to do anything about Scalia and Thomas. And that is operating against the best interests of America
sandy reid
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
How do these people get to stay in these positions. This poor excuse for a human being should be thrown out on his prejudice rump roast. These judges are supposed to be above reproach with no ties to any sides not in the arm pit of the Koch Brothers. How can we get him the heck out?
SinghX
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Let’s just call him what he is; a pig. He is a large headed, snout-nosed, sloven, cretinous “undomesticated” feral pig. Pigs are “smart” mammals that can be trained to preform various task and tricks, however, they also damage the ecosystem spread disease and have aggressive behavior; they are on the list of invasive species. IMHO, the extinction of this particular pig could not come soon enough.
Jo
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Everything that’s fu with this country is a result of consertives. They are evil there is no doubt about it. It’s time for their lies and oppression to be called out, corrected and condemned every time. Enough is enough fight back this must end or they will just continue as they are doing more evil every day. They want all the wealth and power and want all who are weak dead and the rest for slave labor. That’s where we are headed unless they are stopped. Had enough already take action.
Anne
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Justice Scalia is blatantly in league with the Koch brothers and their ilk. With his insulting words, he made light of the struggles so many engaged in to ensure that African-Americans got to vote. People like Martin Luther King, as well as Viola Luizzo, and Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman paid with their very lives. He also made light of the very real and very transparent attempts by Republicans in a number of states to engage in voter suppression that has been on display since the president won his first term. While his position deserves respect, he has proven that he is a despicable excuse for a human being.
Robert Chapman
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 7:05 am
Scalia is blatantly in league with the Koch brothers? Based on what?
Scalia’s statement on Thursday is entirely in keeping with his positions during his long tenure as SCOTUS associate justice.
What is glaringly obvious is Scalia’s unwillingness to apply the 15th amendment to contemporary American election rules.
Scalia is trying to foist his opinions on us instead of relying on the pertinent section of the US Constitution.
Reynardine
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 8:19 am
His acceptance of expensive treats from litigants and their allies shortly before ruling in their favor demonstrates him to be a justitute, and the Kochs are the best-heeled of johns.
Reynardine
Feb. 28th, 2013 at 8:31 pm
I would, in this case, consider depicting jewelry, but I am not a jeweller.
Reynardine
Mar. 1st, 2013 at 3:16 pm
vegasjessie.com/2012/06/3...
For Scalia’s literal Fascist roots
Robert Chapman
Mar. 2nd, 2013 at 7:01 am
Quick review of the voting rights act shows nine states, mostly in south, but also including the 2008 GOP candidates’ respective home states of Alaska and Arizona and most of New Hampshire the last redoubt of the GOP in New England as areas under scrutiny.
It is worthwhile to re-visit this law and ask whether it has become politically polarized or whether it still serves a legal purpose.
It is likely that the current review will result in an updating of the map. Some of the southern states might well be removed from the map of restricted areas and other states, notably Pennsylvania and Ohio might well be added.
Ohio and Pennsylvania should be added to the list of restricted states if their laws concerning voter id requirements constitute an unconstitutional burden on the exercise of the franchise, but not for the partisan effect such actions might produce.