Justice Scalia: the right to vote is an ‘entitlement’

[rdean]

Under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, 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.” That amendment was ratified in 1870 under the administration of President Grant, one of my heroes.
As we all know, it was put into effect–after a century of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other gimmicks to keep blacks from voting–only because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

No, Justice Scalia, the right to vote is not an entitlement

--------------------------------------------------------

I remember, during the election, one former GOP governor of one of the north eastern states, a woman, saying she had been on committees that went overseas to watch over Democratic elections and what the Republicans have done in this country is worse than in many third world countries. Only a truly blind conservative who is in complete denial can deny what Republicans tried to do during the last election.

 

[midcan5]

The republican party has returned the rhetoric of Joseph McCarthy, odd how meaningless accusations are the best they can do. Scalia is just another fascist mentality who finds democracy interferes with the rich and powerful. Sad example of a jurist. See Ted below, he is the new face or is that old face of the republicans.

'Ted Cruz is the face of American Fascism'

Ted Cruz Responds: There Were Many Communists at Harvard Law : The New Yorker

 

[rdean]

The republican party has returned the rhetoric of Joseph McCarthy, odd how meaningless accusations are the best they can do. Scalia is just another fascist mentality who finds democracy interferes with the rich and powerful. Sad example of a jurist. See Ted below, he is the new face or is that old face of the republicans.

'Ted Cruz is the face of American Fascism'

Ted Cruz Responds: There Were Many Communists at Harvard Law : The New Yorker

Unfortunately, there is a very real possibility of the 5 conservative justices overturning the Voting Rights Act. That would send it back to congress. A Republican congress. This could be the explosive situation the Republicans are looking for. Very bad for the country they want to divide and bring down.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which 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.

Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 99-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

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.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.

“Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.

‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’: Scalia Attacks Congress Over Voting Rights Act | TPMDC

The Constitution doesn’t endorse Scalia’s sentiment, either:

The right to vote is the fundamental right that has been the source of the most significant Supreme Court litigation. The Constitution addresses voting in Article II and four subsequent amendments (the 15th, forbidding discrimination in voting on the basis "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" the 19th, forbidding discrimination in voting based on sex; the 24th, prohibiting "any poll tax" on a person before they can vote; and the 26th, granting the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18). The Court has chosen to also strictly scrutinize restrictions on voting other than those specifically prohibited by the Constitution because, in its words, the right to vote "is preservative of other basic civil and political rights."

Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

 

[rdean]

At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which 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.

Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 99-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

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.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.

“Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.

‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’: Scalia Attacks Congress Over Voting Rights Act | TPMDC

The Constitution doesn’t endorse Scalia’s sentiment, either:

The right to vote is the fundamental right that has been the source of the most significant Supreme Court litigation. The Constitution addresses voting in Article II and four subsequent amendments (the 15th, forbidding discrimination in voting on the basis "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" the 19th, forbidding discrimination in voting based on sex; the 24th, prohibiting "any poll tax" on a person before they can vote; and the 26th, granting the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18). The Court has chosen to also strictly scrutinize restrictions on voting other than those specifically prohibited by the Constitution because, in its words, the right to vote "is preservative of other basic civil and political rights."

Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

Forcing people to purchase an ID in communities where they were born IS a "poll tax". For white Republicans they don't understand what the problem is. Just get a birth certificate. The one I got for my Passport cost $25. For someone very poor, that's a lot of money. Worse, many Americans of my generation or older were born at home with a midwife and have no birth certificate. I have cousins and aunts and uncles in that circumstance and they are white and don't approve of what the Republicans are trying to do.

Worse, with the changing Demographics, Republicans can't "turn back the tide". The evil they do today will be used on them in the future. Believe it.

 

[Rozman]

I think it's totally reasonable to take every precaution to make sure our elections are on the up and up
I don't understand this fight by the left to stop a simple and fair requirement that people provide a valid proof of identity.

 

[Sallow]

Scalia should read the Constitution, because like many conservatives..he has NO CLUE what is in it.

Amendment XIX

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 sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Joe Steel]

This is an impeachable offense. Scalia has gone too far this time.

Of course, he won't be impeached but someone should try. Then, when the Republicans reject the attempt, the Democrats will have the all they need to win the 2014 election.

 

[Lakhota]

Scalia is a major embarrassment to SCOTUS...and humanity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, 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.” That amendment was ratified in 1870 under the administration of President Grant, one of my heroes.
As we all know, it was put into effect–after a century of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other gimmicks to keep blacks from voting–only because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

No, Justice Scalia, the right to vote is not an entitlement

--------------------------------------------------------

I remember, during the election, one former GOP governor of one of the north eastern states, a woman, saying she had been on committees that went overseas to watch over Democratic elections and what the Republicans have done in this country is worse than in many third world countries. Only a truly blind conservative who is in complete denial can deny what Republicans tried to do during the last election.

Gee, I wonder what he meant by that.

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

Entitlement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, an entitlement is a right guaranteed by the government. Since there would be no voting at all if there was no government, voting is the poster boy of entitlements.

In other words, the fact that you do not understand English does not make other people wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The republican party has returned the rhetoric of Joseph McCarthy, odd how meaningless accusations are the best they can do. Scalia is just another fascist mentality who finds democracy interferes with the rich and powerful. Sad example of a jurist. See Ted below, he is the new face or is that old face of the republicans.

'Ted Cruz is the face of American Fascism'

Ted Cruz Responds: There Were Many Communists at Harvard Law : The New Yorker

There was a unanimous decision last week that said that police saying a dog smelled drugs is probable cause for a search. The last group of people

Unfortunately, there is a very real possibility of the 5 conservative justices overturning the Voting Rights Act. That would send it back to congress. A Republican congress. This could be the explosive situation the Republicans are looking for. Very bad for the country they want to divide and bring down.

The last thing the court wants to do is overturn Section 5 of the VRA, but the Justice Department is insisting on applying it in such a way that they will probably be forced to, and I would not be surprised if the vote is more than 5 in favor of tossing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At issue was the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 law, which 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.

Congress has renewed the law four times, most recently in 2006 for a period of 25 years. The margin of victory was 99-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

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.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia’s insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.

“Do you think think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He did not endorse Scalia’s sentiment.

‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’: Scalia Attacks Congress Over Voting Rights Act | TPMDC

The Constitution doesn’t endorse Scalia’s sentiment, either:

The right to vote is the fundamental right that has been the source of the most significant Supreme Court litigation. The Constitution addresses voting in Article II and four subsequent amendments (the 15th, forbidding discrimination in voting on the basis "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" the 19th, forbidding discrimination in voting based on sex; the 24th, prohibiting "any poll tax" on a person before they can vote; and the 26th, granting the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18). The Court has chosen to also strictly scrutinize restrictions on voting other than those specifically prohibited by the Constitution because, in its words, the right to vote "is preservative of other basic civil and political rights."

Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

I should have known you would get this wrong.

 

[rdean]

I think it's totally reasonable to take every precaution to make sure our elections are on the up and up
I don't understand this fight by the left to stop a simple and fair requirement that people provide a valid proof of identity.

So you approve of a poll tax? And what about people who never had a birth certificate. It's not uncommon in the deep south or in the mountains. You want to penalize good Americans because they weren't as fortunate as you? Doesn't seem very, well, "Christian".

 

[Polk]

Scalia should read the Constitution, because like many conservatives..he has NO CLUE what is in it.

Amendment XIX

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 sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The "account of sex" part is important there.