1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Antiquated racial entitlement about to get hacked by the SCOTUS

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by bigtexxx, Feb 27, 2013.

  1. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    A 50 year old law requiring 16 states to clear election changes with the federal government might get slapped down by the Supreme Court. Of course the liberals are outraged and have already begun the race card hurling...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2768942.html

    WASHINGTON -- Conservative justices on the Supreme Court expressed skepticism Wednesday about whether the federal government should still be requiring preclearance of voting system changes in certain places with a history of racial discrimination in elections.

    Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it.

    "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes," Scalia said during oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder.

    "Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who's going to vote against that?" Scalia wondered. He said that the Voting Rights Act had effectively created "black districts by law."

    But liberal justices argued forcefully that Section 5's preclearance requirement was still necessary and had proved to be an effective way for the Justice Department and the courts to stop discrimination at the polling place. Justice Elena Kagan said the formula "seems to be working pretty well."

    Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that Shelby County, Ala., probably wasn't the right part of the country to be challenging a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

    "Some parts of the South have changed. Your county pretty much hasn't," said Sotomayor. "You may be the wrong party bringing this."

    "Under any formula that Congress could devise, it would still capture Alabama," added Kagan.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote between the Supreme Court's liberal and conservative blocs, didn't offer progressives much hope that he would find Section 5 constitutional, saying that while the provision was necessary in 1965, this was 2013.

    "The Marshall Plan was very good, too -- the Northwest Ordinance, the Morrill Act -- but times change," Kennedy said.

    If Congress wants to "single out" states, he said, the legislators should "do it by name." He repeatedly described Congress as having "reverse engineered" the formula originally used in the Voting Rights Act to ensure that certain states would be covered by Section 5. Lawmakers didn't take the "time and energy" to come up with a proper formula for which states should be subject to preclearance, said Kennedy.

    Chief Justice John Roberts sharply questioned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, asking him whether it was the position of the U.S. government that residents of Southern states -- most of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 are in the South -- are more racist than those of Northern states.

    Verrilli said that was not the U.S. position in the case. He also pointed out that the Justice Department has only objected to a "tiny fraction" of the proposed electoral changes submitted under the preclearance process.

    Cases under the Voting Rights Act's Section 2, which can be brought against any jurisdiction in the country, are much more expensive, Verrilli said, and often demand after-the-fact litigation rather than preventing questionable voting changes before they go into effect.

    Congress wasn't working from a "blank slate" when it reauthorized the act in 2006, the solicitor general said. He argued that Congress was well within its rights to renew Section 5 for another 25 years and had extensively studied the issue before voting overwhelmingly to do so.

    Kagan asked a lawyer for Shelby County who should be able to decide when the discrimination problems that the Voting Rights Act was meant to address had ended.

    "Who gets to have that call? Is it you? Is it the court? Is it Congress?" she asked. When the lawyer replied that the Supreme Court should answer that question, Kagan said she hadn't realized the court was being given a "big new power to decide whether racial discrimination has been solved."

    After the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News observed, "I think it's safe to say there are five votes to strike down either one or both parts of the Voting Rights Act."
     
  2. QdoubleA

    QdoubleA Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trying. Too. Hard.
     
  3. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    it's progress -- we don't need 50 year old relics of yesterday taking away states' rights
     
  4. QdoubleA

    QdoubleA Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    256
    Indeed, we need new relics to establish equality for those who people like yourself would like to see treated as second class citizens.

    Country is a changin', you are a dinosaur in a new era...how does that feel?
     
  5. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046
    The Voting Rights Act is a racial entitlement? Lol. You wonder why people call you a racist? It's because there's absolutely no proof of it.
     
  6. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,733
    Likes Received:
    3,375
    Another racial resentment thread by a son of the Confederacy.

    He demonstrates why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary.
     
  7. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,227
    Likes Received:
    7,949
    You're either have no clue about the irony in your post or you are the biggest troll ever. Congrats in either case.
     
  8. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,227
    Likes Received:
    7,949
    Scalia's not even trying anymore. He's gone full gonzo wingnut.

    Take this quote from today...

    ”This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”

    And here I thought Scalia, like most Conservatives, did not want legislation from the bench. I guess it is only OK if the decision favors the Republican Party.

    Then there's also this little blurb to consider:

    But hey, what does the Constitution matter? Scalia knows you can't leave this stuff up to Congress.
     
  9. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Since when is voting an entitlement?

    Just another race baiting thread from our resident bigot.
     
    #9 mc mark, Feb 28, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  10. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,091
    Likes Received:
    14,199
    I think it's time to expand the oversight requirements to all fifty states.
     
  11. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,613
    Likes Received:
    6,238
    http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php

    Some of these states may still need it. You could just call it the SEC rule.
     
  12. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,565
    Likes Received:
    33,441
    What a happy day for the far right with their white (hooded) knight Scalia (too bad he's Italian) taking a baby step toward the good ole days. Yeeha!

    If anyone things this is an antiquated idea, they didn't watch the trenches in either of the last two elections.
     
  13. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    Tossing the race card. You're exhibiting intellectual laziness, providing no facts and no logic.

    And speaking of the last election, does this ring a bell?
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8PRYJqfcEe0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  14. rockergordon

    rockergordon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    17
    We're gonna see a lot more ****ty voter ID laws in these states if this gets tossed. Kudos to Republicans.... they might win a national election if they are able make it hard for poor people to vote.
     
  15. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    61,052
    Likes Received:
    28,543
    IF you cannot win on merit . . .. cheat!
    IF you cannot win . . . .. change the rules.

    Rocket River
     
  16. QdoubleA

    QdoubleA Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,767
    Likes Received:
    256
    LOL, and some poster(s) got neg-repped for calling out this racist, whether he's putting on a show or not, laughable.
     
  17. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,565
    Likes Received:
    33,441
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one! :grin:

    I can google a million articles detailed GOP led voter disenfranchisement, even increasing over the last 25 years. Keep the minorities and the college-aged from voting by any means possible. You well know it's central to your gameplan.

    You're getting the basso treatment henceforth, since you're no longer even entertaining. Sad. :( Buh bye.
     
  18. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    more lazy lies from you without any kind of supporting evidence. I'm not impressed.

    ...and then you announce that you're too lazy to even bother trying. Doesn't surprise me that's you'd tuck tail and run away.

    see ya
     
  19. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    texxx, what is your level of understanding of SCOTUS?

    those who watch the court know that this was a long time coming, since SCOTUS had warned Congress about pre-clearance the last time around. I suppose you will also cheer for when affirmative action is struck down 5-3 (Kagan being recused, despite the fact that she was a law school dean, and probably best placed to address the question---oh ethics).

    But save some cheers for when the Kennedy of Romer v. Evans steps up to the plate and makes it clear in oral arguments that he will strike down DOMA. Save some cheers for when Roberts, who did pro bono work for gay rights advocates, suddenly decides that there is an avenue towards a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Save some of that mirth for a Supreme Court that will continue delivering progressive landmark victories despite being nominally "conservative". Then the riot begins when Obama or Hillary even get to decide who bats at the plate next.

    save some of that cheer. bottle it up. it will come in handy.
     
  20. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    Changing the topic! hahaha a clear sign of defeat. Do you feel incapable of addressing the topic at hand? Looks like you had to bring in other unrelated arguments instead of focusing on the issue.
     

Share This Page