Scalia Keeping It Real

[nodoginnafight]

The core issue is whether or not we can trust the deep south to maintain a level playing field for minorities in terms of voting rights.

In the past, that answer was a resounding no.

In the present ... it seems to me that I've seen just as many efforts to restrict voting rights in the midwest and in the rust belt. If current laws are sufficient to foil these efforts at voter supression, then they should be sufficient when applied to the deep south.

or blue states to respect 2nd amendment rights

what are you talking about?

 

[Spoonman]

The core issue is whether or not we can trust the deep south to maintain a level playing field for minorities in terms of voting rights.

In the past, that answer was a resounding no.

In the present ... it seems to me that I've seen just as many efforts to restrict voting rights in the midwest and in the rust belt. If current laws are sufficient to foil these efforts at voter supression, then they should be sufficient when applied to the deep south.

or blue states to respect 2nd amendment rights

what are you talking about?

just look to recently passed legislation in NY for your answer

 

[nodoginnafight]

or blue states to respect 2nd amendment rights

what are you talking about?

just look to recently passed legislation in NY for your answer

Oh, I get it. For you everything ultimately comes back to guns.

"What's for dinner honey?"
"An AK-47 and screw the carbs."

Bon appetit

 

[Erand7899]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

Before you get too indignant, you should attempt to understand exactly what Justice Scalia said. However, such an effort would take all the fun out of being a liberal/socialist. You loons glorify in indignation.

The Civil Rights Act does not just refer to voting.

BTW, why do you numbnuts always insist that Blacks and other minorities are not quite as good as White people, and are therefore in need of your help to meet the same voting requirements?

A racist is someone who believes his/her race is superior to other races, and that seems to be your belief.

 

[Erand7899]

Sure doesn't take much for rw nutters to dump the Constitution when it suits their racist agenda. The Constitution of my USA says we all have an equal right to vote. The right of every American to vote is NOT "racial entitlement".

Even white Republicans should be against Scalia's racist statement.

If we all have the same rights, why do we need special laws for segments of the population?

Surely, the same law should apply to all?

yes it should.

Then we had states who did all sorts of reprehensible things to keep certain people in their states from being able to vote by creating silly laws that ONLY applied to certain voters.


The day all of the evil brain damaged racists in our midst die a natrual death then we can rest assured we dont need laws like this anymore.


Until then I suggest to the court that they strike the part that makes only a few states beholden to these laws and make all our country have to get permission to change laws like these.

The day all of the evil, brain damaged racists die a natural death, you won't be around to rest assured. You are one of those evil, brain damaged racists.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Civil Rights Act does not just refer to voting.

ummmm .... yeah ... but Scalia wasn't talking about the Civil Rights Act.
He was talking about the Voting Rights Act.

and correct me if I'm wrong ..... cause I'm just spitballin' here .... but I think the Voting Rights Act probably had something to do with voting.

 

[Spoonman]

what are you talking about?

just look to recently passed legislation in NY for your answer

Oh, I get it. For you everything ultimately comes back to guns.

"What's for dinner honey?"
"An AK-47 and screw the carbs."

Bon appetit

no you don't get it. to me everything comes back to rights

 

[Polk]

Excuse me, are the states not comprised of people? Are you saying the federal government has the right to treat the people in the various states differently from other states. You do understand the concept of a republican form of government, don't you?

The federal government treats people in different states differently all the time.

How could I possibly argue with the fine examples you provided to support your statement. I just have one small question, what the hell are you talking about?

For starters, some states have military bases and some states do not. That's an example of differential treatment.

 

[g5000]

The federal government treats people in different states differently all the time.

How could I possibly argue with the fine examples you provided to support your statement. I just have one small question, what the hell are you talking about?

For starters, some states have military bases and some states do not. That's an example of differential treatment.

How much would you like to bet there are states that do not have military bases?

CONUS US Military Installations Map and State Abbreviation

And what does the presence of a base have to do with the equal application of the laws?

Jesus! Talk about equivocation!

 

[Polk]

I was talking about full scale installations, not a random airstrip or an armory here and there.

And your complaint was that the states have to all be treated the same. That was just one example of how they're not.

 

[OKTexas]

The federal government treats people in different states differently all the time.

How could I possibly argue with the fine examples you provided to support your statement. I just have one small question, what the hell are you talking about?

For starters, some states have military bases and some states do not. That's an example of differential treatment.

That has got to be the weakest example I've ever seen, there are reasons military bases are located where they are, terrain, land available, climate, accessibility to transportation and many other factors. Care to try again?

 

[Polk]

How could I possibly argue with the fine examples you provided to support your statement. I just have one small question, what the hell are you talking about?

For starters, some states have military bases and some states do not. That's an example of differential treatment.

That has got to be the weakest example I've ever seen, there are reasons military bases are located where they are, terrain, land available, climate, accessibility to transportation and many other factors. Care to try again?

I don't need to try again. His argument was that the states have to be treated equally. Equal means equal. He didn't say "equal, after accounting for factors". Because, of course, that would totally undermine his argument here (since there is a pretty significant factor for why certain states are subject to the Voting Rights Act and others are not).

 

[Agit8r]

This is why Supreme Court judges have lifetime tenure. Scalia is right on. The screams you hear are pigs getting stuck.
Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia?s ?racial entitlement? argument | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Civil rights leaders are up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's skeptical questions about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of the civil rights movement that brought an end to Jim Crow-era racial discrimination at the polls in the South.

In oral arguments over the law on Wednesday, Scalia, a stalwart of the court's conservative wing, suggested that the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly reauthorized in 2006 by Congress because the nation's politicians were afraid to oppose a "racial entitlement."

Scalia said that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in the past 50 years, more and more senators supported it, even though the problem of racial discrimination at the polls has decreased over that time. "Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this," he said. "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."

More at the source.

Show me a racist, and I'll show you someone with penis insecurity.

 

[OKTexas]

For starters, some states have military bases and some states do not. That's an example of differential treatment.

That has got to be the weakest example I've ever seen, there are reasons military bases are located where they are, terrain, land available, climate, accessibility to transportation and many other factors. Care to try again?

I don't need to try again. His argument was that the states have to be treated equally. Equal means equal. He didn't say "equal, after accounting for factors". Because, of course, that would totally undermine his argument here (since there is a pretty significant factor for why certain states are subject to the Voting Rights Act and others are not).

Still doesn't explain why the AG should have injunctive powers reserved to the courts by the Constitution.

 

[Polk]

That has got to be the weakest example I've ever seen, there are reasons military bases are located where they are, terrain, land available, climate, accessibility to transportation and many other factors. Care to try again?

I don't need to try again. His argument was that the states have to be treated equally. Equal means equal. He didn't say "equal, after accounting for factors". Because, of course, that would totally undermine his argument here (since there is a pretty significant factor for why certain states are subject to the Voting Rights Act and others are not).

Still doesn't explain why the AG should have injunctive powers reserved to the courts by the Constitution.

The Attorney General does not have the power to issue an injunction in this case or any other.

 

[g5000]

I was talking about full scale installations, not a random airstrip or an armory here and there.

And your complaint was that the states have to all be treated the same. That was just one example of how they're not.

It's about equal protection of the laws, not equal pork.

Stop equivocating.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Really? Then why is it that under this Administration, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any voting rights violations if the victim is white and the person committing the violation is a minority?

I'm sure you can provide the exact-quote you're referring-to!!!

GO!!!!!



​

Here is the Wiki link...

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal precedentsSince the voting rights act was enacted in 1965, only a handful of cases under the act have been pursued by the Justice Department. According to AAG Perez, the Department has records of only three prior cases.[10] One case that the department filed during the Bush administration, United States v. Brown, was one of the first voting rights cases which involved a white plaintiff and a black defendant. The case precipitated deep divisions within the Justice Department. Some employees felt that the voting rights act was passed because historically, it was minorities who had been disenfranchised and that the department should therefore focus on cases filed by minorities, while others felt that it was intended to protect all voters in a race-neutral manner. Employees who worked the Brown case have described being harassed by colleagues due to the widespread belief that civil rights laws should not be used to protect white voters. One Justice Department official stated that "The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around."[8]

+++++++++++++

J. Christian AdamsSee also: J. Christian Adams
On May 14, 2010, J. Christian Adams resigned from his post as a trial attorney for the voting section of the Department of Justice. In his resignation letter and a subsequent article written by him for the Washington Times, Adams stated that the reason for his resignation was his disapproval of the department's handling of the Black Panther case, and more specifically their demand that he not comply with the subpoena from the Civil Rights Commission.[34][35]

In testimony before the Civil Rights commission, Adams stated "I was told by voting section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims."[36] Adams has also accused the lawyers who ordered the narrowing of the case of having not read the documents describing the facts and applicable law before making this decision, and claimed that his superiors had instructed him and others in the voting section to no longer bring any cases against minority offenders. Responding to the claim that the New Black Panthers' actions in Philadelphia were an "isolated incident", Adams has said "To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters."[35]

 

[Political Junky]

Sotomayor taken aback after Scalia says Voting Rights Act Is A ?Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement? | FreakOutNation

 

[Polk]

I was talking about full scale installations, not a random airstrip or an armory here and there.

And your complaint was that the states have to all be treated the same. That was just one example of how they're not.

It's about equal protection of the laws, not equal pork.

Stop equivocating.

Citizens are entitled to equal protection. Citizens and states are not the same thing.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm sure you can provide the exact-quote you're referring-to!!!

GO!!!!!



​

Here is the Wiki link...

In testimony before the Civil Rights commission, Adams stated "I was told by voting section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants on [behalf] of white victims."[36]

Not familiar with footnotes, huh???? ​

Anti-White Bias At The Justice Department?​

"The clash between the commission and the Justice Department has its origins in an election day incident in which two members of the New Black Panther Party, one of whom was carrying a nightstick, were captured on videotape standing outside a polling station in Philadelphia. According to a witness, the Panthers shouted racial slurs; one said, presumably to a white voter: "Now you will see what it is like to be ruled by the black man, cracker." In the closing days of the George W. Bush administration, the department filed a complaint against the two men, along with the head of the party and the organization itself, asking a court to rule that they had violated the law and to order them not to engage in similar conduct. After President Obama took office, however, the department decided that charges should be dropped against all of the defendants except the man with the nightstick. The department succeeded in obtaining an injunction to forbid him from carrying a weapon at a polling place in the future."

.

.

.

.

.

.

Nice try.....SKIPPY!!!!​

​