Was Antonin Scalia's "entitlement" comment racist?

YES! To call voting rights "racial entitlements" is offense.
27%
YES! And this shows why we need The Voting Rights Act.
73%

9 comments

Gary the Gun Nut
Your post is right on except

Your post is right on except for one minor error...

Bill Clinton was the "first Black REPUBLICAN President".

Obama is the first mulatto president.

arky12
arky12's picture
Should have been a third

Should have been a third choice, both, because the are both correct.  Anyone who cares to pay attention knows that Scalia is a racist, political hack.  Bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers and probably others.  He should be impeached from the Court along with a few of his cronies.  It's time that we had a Congress with the guts to follow the Constitution and put some limits on the Court's powers instead of allowing them to do their job for them.

Of course, this congress doesn't want to do their job anyway given that some of them now want the President to do it for them in addition to the Supreme Court.

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
   Right on, Lizzie in Boca!

   Right on, Lizzie in Boca!  I'm still kicking myself after squandering my vote on Obama a second time.  It was definitely a fear vote.  Just couldn't stomach the prospect of Empty Suit Romney and Pipsqueak Ryan getting in; those two freaked me out so bad, I couldn't help myself.  But like you, I'm sick of hearing those tired old excuses for Obama dropping the ball again & again: on healthcare, on Social Security and those obscene Bush tax cuts for the piggish few, to name three major examples...  and Obama's refusal to prosecute war criminals like Bush, Rove & Cheney was such a cop-out. (Remember his lame rationale, "looking foreward not back"? Pathetic.)  Let's not forget Obama's murderous drone rampages against "suspected" terrorists and everyone else caught in the crossfire, mowed down by his high-tech death machines.  Constitutional scholar, my ASS.  Never again will I cast a fear vote!  I've learned my lesson, Lizzie.

   I have never forgiven LBJ for the Vietnam War.  In my mind, that excludes LBJ from the "true progressive" category of legislators.  But even that old war monger looks pretty damn good next to Obama, in light of LBJ's much more vigorous efforts towards reducing poverty in this country.  Never thought I'd ever catch myself saying such a thing, after all those peace marches I participated in back in the not-so-good ole days.

   Thank you for your input, sister.  It's a breath of fresh air.  I hope to see more input from you.  Women are underrepresented in this blog; especially women of color.  - Aliceinwonderland

mattfiller
mattfiller's picture
Justice Scalia has used the

Justice Scalia has used the racist language of nullification of the 15th amendment from the bench. Shame on him. He should be impeached.

 

 Voting became a pepetual "racial entitlement", in Justice Scalia's phrase, on February 3, 1870, when the 15th Amendment was ratified: "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. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The citizens of the United States are thus entitled to vote, and this entitlement is guaranteed to all races. Congress has enacted appropriate legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as reauthorized in 2006, to enforce this article. Any decision by the Supreme Court voiding this act or any portion of it, except on account of a subsequent amendment, is itself unconstitutional, and if that happens the Congress should pass a law revoking such a decision by explicitly citing its authority under the 15th amendment. This would be a valid overrule of Marbury v. Madison in a clear case of judicial overreach, as the record shows that the review provided for in the legislation is necessary to enforce the article.

 

 I hope someone will file an amicus curiae brief to that effect, pointing out the Judicial overreach implied in overturning the enabling legislation of the 15th amendment, and demanding Justice Scalia's recusal in this matter on basis of this racist comment's contradiction with his oath of office. This brief should make clear that any change to the Voting Rights act, as enabling legislation explicitly provided for by the Constitution, would itself be unconstitutional and would exceed the Court's authority, as the Constitution gives the Congress the power to determine what is necessary to enforce the article.

telliottmbamsc
telliottmbamsc's picture
Laws, regs, and legislation

Laws, regs, and legislation that are obsolete are on the books of cities and states throughout America.  There are plenty even on the books of the Federal Government as well.  So why the big interest in doing housing keeping on this particular law?

Leave the Voting Rights Act in full force and effect - Scalia and his right wing monsters aren't fooling anybody!

samsnead
Antonin Scalia is Reagan's

Antonin Scalia is Reagan's Revenge on the republic. This "Justice" misidentifies Gore as the plaintiff in Bush (dumbya) v. Gore even to this day!! This "legal schloar" is nothing more than a modern day Roland Freisler by turning your Supreme Court into a Nazi "People's Court". If the Bush v. Gore  travesty proves on thing its that you MAY have the right to vote, you do not necessarily posess the right to have it COUNTED, (See Electoral College and provisional ballots). Remember the FACIST FIVE who brought you dumbya: Rhenquist ( the opiate addict who thought the CIA was out to kill him when he was detoxifying at Bethesda), Sandy O'Connor, SCALIA, Kennedy, and, last but not least, LONG DONG. 

Lizzie in Boca
Lizzie in Boca's picture
Hey, Thom -- R U w/me

Hey, Thom -- R U w/me yet??????  I ranted on Ed Schultz's show hosted by the WONDERFUL Mike Papantonio to say, basically, as a Black woman -- a recently-widowed spouse of my second White husband -- living in Palm Beach County, FL, I am SICK TO DEATH of "liberals" making excuses for President Obama's lack of backbone when dealing with the do-nothing Congress "led" by Harry Reid and John Boehner.  Puleez -- we've gotten just what could be expected from a man who is NO FDR, NO Harry Truman & NO LBJ.  For far too long, as a matter of act it might be too late, President Obama's lack of negotiating skills, forcefulness in fighting for Progressive/Democratic ideals has been reinforced by myriad excuses:  Oh, he doesn't want to appear to be an "angry Black man," "he's playing chess, not checkers," etc., etc., ad nauseum.  In case anyone's forgotten, in the first picture taken of the President with the living former Presidents, where was President Obama?  Between the BUSHES.  Where were Presidents Clinton and Carter?  Almost out of the frame!  What was one of President Obama's first acts?  Freezing ALL Federal hiring.  What was his immediate response to extending Medicare to ALL citizens, from birth to death:  "Uh, we don't want to 'reinvent the wheel.'"  Let's not forget, that the First Lady was an attorney/officer of a large Chicago hospital, whose goals did not necessarily comport with Medicare for all.  With whom has he surrounded himself?  CORPORATISTS!  Who is an absolute DISGRACE as Attorney General of the United States, a former Covington & Burling partner (huge corporate law firm), Eric Holder -- who has known for YEARS that millions of minorities have been disenfranchised throughout the country.  Why didn't the President FIRE every single deputy ag and replace them w/Democratic a.g.s?  As a result, what has the Justice Department done to preempt the current unconstitutional action regarding the Voting Rights Act of 1965?  NOTHING!  This is what you get when a corporatist is installed in the White House.  I am a proud Black Progressive who is totally disappointed in President Obama -- despite the fact that I and my late husband campaigned for him in '08, but did not do so in '12.  If the past is prologue, the President's naivete about "not worrying about Section 5" of the Voting Rights Act being overturned, because "we can fix that" is either a comment coming from lala-land or so disingenuous as to simply bowl me over.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that President Obama will take whatever steps are necessary to counteract the judicial activisim of the Supreme Court or the complete lack of Congressional integrity in dealing with any of the crucial issues that face our country today.  As to Social Security, "we're willing to compromise and put 'everything' on the table?!"  Chained CPI???  Please, NO MORE APOLOGIES for the President's lack of intestinal fortitude.  The President has apparently forgotten that he is supposed to be the leader of the Democratic Party, not the lackey of the Republican Party.  Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect that, had he been White, instead of Black like me, the President would have -- and could have -- successfully run for and won the Republican nomination back in '08, and might have been the first Black REPUBLICAN President.  Finally, as to the President having "street creds" because he was a community organizer . . . I used to tell my husband, if that proved one's Progressive roots, any Ku Klux Klan member could be considered a "progressive."  There is absolutely nothing in the President's record -- either in the Presidency or the Senate -- that demonstrates a truly progressive agenda, and I am sick and tired of the excuses made by Liberals and my Black brothers and sisters for his inability to stand up for Democratic values.  Yes, listen to Harry S. Truman, LBJ and FDR and learn what it means to be a TRUE Progressive!  That's my rant for today!  Thx for all you do, Thom!

dianhow
dianhow's picture
Scalia  is a disgrace . 

Scalia  is a disgrace .  Never thought Supreme Court  would become  so divisive and biased . .

LeMoyne
LeMoyne's picture
From Democracy Now! this

From Democracy Now! this AM....

Ari Berman of The Nation wrote:
Well, Scalia made be outrageous statement that the Voting Rights Act is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" and that that’s why Congress has supported it so overwhelmingly. And Scalia basically said that the overwhelming congressional support for the Voting Rights Act means it must be unconstitutional.

And Sotomayor basically said, "Discrimination is discrimination. It’s ongoing today. This is not racial entitlement; this is about a basic fundamental right that for so many years America ignored." And she said to Shelby County, the county that’s bringing the state, "You don’t have the standing to bring this challenge, because as recently as 2008 you were found by the Justice Department to be discriminating on the basis of race, doing a voting change that eliminated one of the only black districts in a city in the county." So, Sotomayor basically said there was no basis to bring this challenge to the Voting Rights Act itself.

Emphasis is mine... unconstitutional because of overwhelming Congressional support?!?! 

Please register or login to post a comment.