Scalia's racial entitlement remark - Page 2 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Paluka
LSU Fan
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
4109 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


This law is antiquated and should be off the books. Everyone has a right to vote without intimidation.






Back to top
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16878 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

This law is antiquated and should be off the books. Everyone has a right to vote without intimidation.

The law doesn't only cover intimidation. Here's an exchange that between Senators Hubert Humphrey and Allen Ellender from March 11, 1964:

"Ellender: The Senator from Minnesota (Hubert Humphrey) has not lived in the South. The situation does not exist in the state of Minnesota that has existed in the South. In some counties in the state of Mississippi, the ratio of Negroes to white is 3 to 1.

Humphrey: I appreciate that...

Ellender: I am frank to say that in many instances the reason why the voting rights were not encouraged is that the white people in those counties are in the minority are afraid they would be outvoted. Let us be frank about it.

Humphrey: It is a fact, is it not, that the large numbers of colored people who are citizens of the United States, many of whom are called upon to perform all the duties of citizenship, in peace and war, are denied the right to register and thereby denied the right to vote.

Ellender: That has been done in many places. "


And here's how LBJ summed it up in his voting rights speech:

"The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal." "Government by consent of the governed." "Give me liberty or give me death." And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives. Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny Americans and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom. Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. This most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of the right to all of our people.

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument: every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to insure that right. Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.

Every device of which human ingenuity is capable, has been used to deny this right. The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent. And if he persists and, if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name, or because he abbreviated a word on the application. And if he manages to fill out an application, he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex provisions of state law.

And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write. For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin. Experience has clearly shown that the existing process of law cannot overcome systematic and ingenious discrimination. No law that we now have on the books, and I have helped to put three of them there, can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it. In such a case, our duty must be clear to all of us. The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color."







Back to top
SM6
Navy Fan
Chicago
Member since Jul 2008
6321 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


There is a very good and very valid reason the VRA was out in place. The racist southerner establishment couldn't be troubled to follow the laws of the United States.

However that is no longer the case and the VRA is no longer needed. Time to do away with it.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16878 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

So you're just going to ignore the most overt voting intimidation incident in the last 10 years because it doesn't fit your narrative?

Interesting.

What I'm saying is that if you looked at the facts of the case and compared it to the history of voter intimidation cases which have been successfully prosecuted, those knuckleheads in Philadelphia didn't even come close to meeting the standard. NOT EVEN CLOSE!






Back to top
  Replies (0)
TheOcean
Florida State Fan
Member since Aug 2004
30543 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

I find it hypocritical of leftists who see the Constitution as some kind of "living, breathing" document that must change to keep up with the times have coniption fits when someone suggests that racial entitlements are anachronistic and should be done away with.


You can view the constitution both ways and not be a hypocrite.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Ellender: The Senator from Minnesota (Hubert Humphrey) has not lived in the South.


As an aside, I thought this was interesting. In fact, Hubert Humphrey HAS lived in the south, at least for some time. He attended LSU for a while.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22361 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

In 2007, the U.S. Senate and W unanimously disagreed. Do you want judicial activists to overturn a law that was renewed 98-0 in the Senate and 390-38 in the House?
If (and in this case it is) unconstitutional... Damn right I want it rejected. The fact that its a majority has no bearing. Hitler's edicts were also unanimously approved.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5688 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

quote: I find it hypocritical of leftists who see the Constitution as some kind of "living, breathing" document that must change to keep up with the times have coniption fits when someone suggests that racial entitlements are anachronistic and should be done away with. You can view the constitution both ways and not be a hypocrite.


You can be a hypocrite and not be a hypocrite?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

So Philiadelphia does nothing to protect non black voters from intimidation from the New Black Panthers--a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center and they are not added to the states who fall under the VRA voter protection enforcement .


If the provisions of the law aren't being enforced properly, that's an issue to address with the Justice Department, but not a reason to declare the law unconstitutional. The law allows areas to be added to the list for bad behavior, just as it allows areas to be taken off for good behavior. If this isn't being done, then the law isn't unconstitutional, it's just not being enforced.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Womski
Army Fan
Squire Creek
Member since Aug 2011
1435 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Scalia








Back to top
  Replies (0)
WeeWee
LSU Fan
St. Maarten
Member since Aug 2012
3312 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


How is half of madison parish not there? My good ole home Tensas Parish is in .





Back to top
  Replies (0)
conservativewifeymom
Maryland
Member since Oct 2012
594 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


On the topic of gerrymandering, have a looksee at what Maryland's half-witted voters approved last November:

LINK

Scalia is 100% correct!






Back to top
  Replies (0)
udtiger
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2006
24324 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

quote:


VRA is so fricking unconstitutional.



In 2007, the U.S. Senate and W unanimously disagreed. Do you want judicial activists to overturn a law that was renewed 98-0 in the Senate and 390-38 in the House?


So, if the House and Senate vote unanimously to reimpose slavery, and the President signs it, that makes its constitutional?

You are a fricking idiot.



This post was edited on 2/28 at 7:56 pm


Back to top
Paluka
LSU Fan
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
4109 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


I believe that this exchange was appropriate in 1964. This type of law is no longer needed and further serves to divide us on racial grounds in 2013.





Back to top
boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
45284 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


It's not the job of Congress to decide what is constitutional or not. They could pass a law 100-0 and 435-0 making it illegal to call a person a pussy and I'd still expect SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16878 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

So, if the House and Senate vote unanimously to reimpose slavery, and the President signs it, that makes its constitutional?

You are a fricking idiot.

How ironic. What you've done is provide us with a textbook example of idiocy and ignorance. Congress can't pass a law allowing slavery because the 13th Amendment expressly forbids it. In order to make slavery legal, the Constitution would have to be amended, but that a process is a lot more complicated than simply passing a law.

Furthermore, the Voting Rights Act was already brought before the Supreme Court back in 1966, a year after it passed, and it was upheld by a vote of 8-1. Perhaps if you spent less time hurling sophomoric insults like some pimply faced junior high school punk, and more time educating yourself, you would know these things. I strongly suggest that you quit being an Angry White Guy who listens to Hannity and Limbaugh all day, and read a freakin' history book so that people won't mistake you for a short-busser.






Back to top
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Huntsville, AL
Member since Oct 2008
26534 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

How ironic. What you've done is provide us with a textbook example of idiocy and ignorance. Congress can't pass a law allowing slavery because the 13th Amendment expressly forbids it. In order to make slavery legal, the Constitution would have to be amended, but that a process is a lot more complicated than simply passing a law.
So he used a bad example. The point stands. The court is under no obligation to a view a thing as constitutional simply because of the margin by which it passed.

quote:

Furthermore, the Voting Rights Act was already brought before the Supreme Court back in 1966, a year after it passed, and it was upheld by a vote of 8-1.
And? Courts have been overturned before. Also, the compelling reason for the thing no longer exists(and it doesn't), then perhaps that changes the equation. I don't know, but it aint like it's a slam dunk.

In any case, the bull shite still being perpetrated on southern cities in the name of this racial entitlement bull shite has long since gone beyond usefullness and into simply perpetual motion.

No one wants to vote against it for fear of getting labeled a racist.






Back to top
Interception
Providence Fan
Member since Nov 2008
11089 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Because they only need it in places where voting rights were denied to African-Americans in the past. The offending areas and states are on a sort of probation. You can argue that the probation has lasted long enough and they should be let off, but the principle of closer scrutiny of proven past offenders is sound.


I agree on the principle of the VRA, the law needed to be place years ago for sure but I wonder about its relevance today. I would like to hope we are past those days.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16878 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

I believe that this exchange was appropriate in 1964. This type of law is no longer needed and further serves to divide us on racial grounds in 2013.

Some folks don't think the law was ever needed, but that's besides the point. The fact remains that there are provisions for covered jurisdictions to be removed from the list, but Shelby County simply refuses to meet the requirements. Why won't Shelby County and other jurisdictions that want to be removed from the list simply follow the example of other jurisdictions that have been removed? Also, remember that there would have never been a need for the Voting Rights Act if the Southern States had simply allowed Black folks to vote in the first place.







Back to top
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
16878 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

So he used a bad example. The point stands. The court is under no obligation to a view a thing as constitutional simply because of the margin by which it passed.

True.
quote:

And? Courts have been overturned before. Also, the compelling reason for the thing no longer exists(and it doesn't), then perhaps that changes the equation. I don't know, but it aint like it's a slam dunk.

In any case, the bull shite still being perpetrated on southern cities in the name of this racial entitlement bull shite has long since gone beyond usefullness and into simply perpetual motion.

No one wants to vote against it for fear of getting labeled a racist.

The thing I would like to see done away with is gerrymandered districts. We would have fewer Blacks and Hispanics in Congress, but we would also have fewer right-wing extremists too. People like Michelle Bachmann and Maxine Waters are an embarrassment IMO.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top