About This Blog
Section 5 of the 1965 (Voting Rights Act) law,...requires state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any changes to their voting laws with the Justice Department prior to enacting them.
"pre-clear any changes to their (state) voting laws with the Justice Department"
That's all that Section 5 calls for. Because many southern states had a long, long history of erecting barriers for blacks before they could vote, Congress included Section 5 in the 1965 legislation to rectify this openly racist and despicable practice by southern white politicians.
Yesterday, in oral arguments before the Supremes, Antonin Scalia, the Fox news representative on the bench, told all of us that the real purpose of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was to entitle blacks. No, really, he did....
Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”
Then, Scalia went on a disgusting Limbaugh-style rant detailing his belief that the only reason Congress keeps renewing Section 5, and each time by larger vote margins, is because of the "perpetuation of racial entitlement." It's at times like these that atheists like myself wish their were an eternal hellfire.....
Scalia...."....in a time when (1965) the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.
Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And 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."
To the oh-so-neutral Scalia, it is unimaginable that elected officials could, over time, come to realize the need, importance and place for Section 5....especially if those officials brushed up on the openly discriminatory practice in southern states of preventing blacks from casting a vote. But, no. Because, you see, Scalia is akin to Jesus. Scalia knows the motives of all elected officials who keep voting to renew Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act....renewed last by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate in 2006.
And because Justice Scalia, like Jesus, can read the motives of all U.S. senators.....Antonin knows what the Senate is doing each time it renews Section 5...that is...."perpetuating racial entitlement."
Set aside if you can, the ugly and effed-up thinking that is required to call Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision which "perpetuates racial entitlement." Set that racist and up-is-down rubbish aside. The real question should be....is there still a problem with some of these southern states attempting to disenfranchise black voters? You decide....
In August, a panel of federal court judges ruled that new district maps drawn by Texas' Republican-controlled legislature weakened the influence of Latino voters and in some cases evinced "discriminatory intent" against both Latinos and African Americans......
In the redistricting case, a panel of three federal judges found that Texas lawmakers had intentionally created districts that would weaken the influence of Latino voters, while appearing to satisfy the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
Two days later, another panel of federal judges unanimously struck down a voter-ID law passed by the legislature in March 2011, arguing that it would disproportionately harm African-American and Latino voters.
It would appear that the southern state of Texas still needs to be monitored when it comes to new state voter laws.....in this case a redistricting move was ruled discriminatory based on race. Which means, contrary to Scalia, that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is still needed to keep would-be, white, minority-vote disenfranchisers in southern states from stripping minority southern state citizens of a guaranteed right .
To modern America-haters like Scalia, laws that are passed and renewed for the purpose of treating all American citizens equal...in this case voting laws.....are "entitlement perpetuators." And that leads us to Scalia's real complaint here. Antonin, like many put-upon white conservatives today....actually believes that whites are the ones being discriminated against in our country today.....not non-whites.
Here's my parting shot for Scalia and his followers.....yes, minorities, and especially blacks, have suffered through decades and decades of second class treatment, including the denial of their voting rights. This problem existed, and still exists to some degree today, primarily in southern, former Confederate states. Justice Antonin Scalia's ignorant and racist remarks yesterday.....remarks which provoked gasps from lawyers listening to oral arguments.....were spoken in the same spirit as those white supremacists who opposed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. 19 Senators then, mostly Democrats, voted against.
Scalia's message? The same message the white supremacist Confederate states sent in Civil War times. 'Ain't no northern, liberal, Yankee, squishes gonna' tell us southern states how to deal with our Negroes.'
Scalia should resign immediately.
- 2013 (113)
- 2012 (265)
- 2011 (254)
- 2010 (274)
- 2009 (302)
- 2008 (331)
- 2007 (305)