I can't believe Scalia basically said in contrast to the 15th amendment of the constitution that voting was an entitlement. Thank goodness Justice Sotomayor asked a question to rebut Scalia's insanity. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...perpetuation-of-racial-entitlement/?mobile=nc Scalia has never been more of a clown.
already posted. lock it up http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=234595 you also need to include a link (always)
No it isn't already posted. I don't pay attention to the stuff you write, but seeing yours, it's a troll thread. There's nothing to discuss there.
sorry I beat you to it, bro ...and then you reluctantly linked to thinkprogress only after I called you out on it...which is a sure sign YOUR post is the troll thread
That statement screams, "i made this thread to piss people off". And besides no one takes you or the other guy basso's threads seriously. I usually steer clear of the D&D but good good some of the threads these days are cringe-worthy.
Frankly it's outrageous to me that the race card is being tossed here. If people have factual rebuttals, then great, otherwise you're not furthering the conversation.
Again, I think the two threads are different. If the mods disagree, then that's fine. I'm not going to say another word about your claim. I will be happy to discuss the case and Scalia's comments right now though. The fact of the matter is, Scalia has really made himself look silly here basically calling voting an entitlement. He is in denial of the fifteenth amendment of the constitution with his statement. It's sad when a supreme court justice can no longer be taken seriously.
So, basically there is a law that limits the rights of the people in states where they use a formula to determine if people are registering to vote? This legislation prevents states that historicaly have larger minority populations from changing their own voting laws? Sounds like a racist law to me. Am I missing something?
Voting was originally granted only to educated white men. I suppose one can use the argument that any law that grants a group to vote could be considered a right or entitlement. I think people would rather argue injustices over the band-aid to a problem instead of finding solutions for the overall patient.
FYA It didn't matter what education they had. I don't even know what you are trying to argue. Should the solution be only people who went to college get to vote. What are you proposing? That we try to undo 200 years of America History.
So, in a state or area that doesn't have certain minority population percentages, you can change your voting laws without this added process? I guess what I don't like about it is it should be all or nothing imo. Of course I don't like the federal government restricting states rights so I would prefer nothing. If a process like this is needed it should be handled at the state level.
It's more complex than that. I usually abhor the things Scalia says, but preclearance is not a black and white issue (pun intended). http://www.ehow.com/facts_7243894_voting-rights-act-preclearance.html The selection of those districts can be construed as dubious as they are based on historical patterns set from the 1950s. I wouldn't call it "entitlement" (I would never speak like Scalia does), but that particular provision the Supreme Court is looking at does have some problems with it in terms of the selection of states/districts based on historical anedoctal evidence. I wouldn't just get outraged because it looks like Scalia and SCOTUS are overturning something called the Voting Rights Act---they're not doing that. They just want to modify how remedying discrimination would work (or at least, I can say that with 100% confidence for all of the justices minus Alito and Scalia. those minds just whirl away on their own.)
There rights will be restricted regardless of this decision. The first 3 sections of the VRA set up some very clear guidelines regarding the drawing of districts, the process of voter registration, the accesibility of polls, etc.. What Section 5 does is create an additional enforcement mechanism in the hands of the President. Part of Section 4 is a formula that determines who is covered by this enforcement mechanism. Even if this court case happens, states are restricted by law on how they can draw their districts or manage elections. What changes is that the enforcement mechanism will only be through direct court challenges and the Justice Department won't be able to strike down laws anymore. This court case only deals with enforcement mechanisms and not the law as a whole.
Scalia is being branded a racist. Granted I honestly do not know what he's trying to imply and I certainly won't speak for him, but I feel this whole argument is pointless. Its similar to the gay marriage argument; People would rather argue and fight over broken logic instead of fix the problem as a whole. Instead of blaming people for being racists over support for the law, perhaps we should have national voting laws to fix multiple issues, not just single ones. But perhaps Im just being daft. Afterall, what fun is it if we took the debate away and we couldn't call each other racists.
en·ti·tle·ment: The fact of having a right to something. The amount to which a person has a right. Synonyms right - title - warrant
