Scalia Sounds Like A White Supremecist

[TruthOut10]

After today's oral arguments on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court's conservative wing will want to uphold the landmark win for civil rights.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At the heart of the law that ended decades of disenfranchisement in former Confederate states is Section 5, the "preclearance" provision. Section 5 requires jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get prior federal approval for any changes to state voting laws. The necessity of this provision was clear: without it, states had been able to nullify the commands of the 15th Amendment by passing measures that were formally race-neutral but were discriminatory in practice.









Regrettably, the Supreme Court appears poised to eliminate one of the proudest achievements of American democracy. As Esquire's Charles Pierce puts it, striking down Section 5 would constitute "the final victory of the long march against the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement that began almost before the ink dried on the bill in 1965."









The most remarkable example of the contemporary Republican hostility to civil rights came, unsurprisingly, from Antonin Scalia. Ensuring equal access to the ballot, asserted Scalia, represents "a phenomenon that has been called the perpetuation of racial entitlement." As it happens, Scalia's argument has precedent ... in the white supremacist arguments made by the Supreme Court in the 19th Century when it was dismantling Reconstruction. In the Civil Rights Cases, the majority opinion sniffed as it struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that "there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when [the freed slave] takes the rank of a mere citizen and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws." As Justice Harlan noted in dissent, this line of argument was nonsense: "What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to [African-Americans] is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race—to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more." Harlan was right then, and he's even more obviously right now. Ensuring equal access to the ballot does not represent a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." It simply provides the foundation for equal citizenship.

Scalia's Weird VRA Spat

 

[ThirdTerm]

The Supreme Court cannot amend Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which bans voting procedures that discriminate on the basis of race because it's a permanent part of the law but it may strike down Section 5 of the law which requires some Southern states to get permission from the Justice Department for any change in voting procedures. Section 5 may be no longer necessary and some states have a history of discrimination but it was more than 50 years ago and nowadays, Section 5 is more concerned with redistricting issues to facilitate minority voters to elect their own candidates by artificially creating majority-minority districts than protecting their right to vote as the law originally intended.

 

[George Costanza]

Rachel Maddow nails it:

Exclusive - Rachel Maddow Extended Interview Pt. 1 - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 02/28/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[TruthOut10]

The false argument that these sorry ass Justices are trying to use it that striking down section 5, that we'll still have an redress with section 2 still standing. But what they fell to tell you is that section 2 doesn't stop that law from becoming enacted and that it will take years and plenty of money to REVERSE what has already been damaged.

They fell to acknowledged how important section 5 was in this 2012 Presidential election alone stopping a bunch of laws from becoming the way of the land.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The false argument that these sorry ass Justices are trying to use it that striking down section 5, that we'll still have an redress with section 2 still standing. But what they fell to tell you is that section 2 doesn't stop that law from becoming enacted and that it will take years and plenty of money to REVERSE what has already been damaged.

They fell to acknowledged how important section 5 was in this 2012 Presidential election alone stopping a bunch of laws from becoming the way of the land.

Not necessarily.

An injunction can be requested pending an outcome.

But your point is well-made, it's an unfortunate waste of time and money with needless court battles.