Scalia's racial entitlement remark - Page 3 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
catnip
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
10346 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Have they added Philadelphia yet???


Have they added voting many more than once?






Back to top
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
17433 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Have they added Philadelphia yet???

Has anyone in Philadelphia files charges yet?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Paluka
LSU Fan
One State Over
Member since Dec 2010
4312 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


First of all, I understand the intent of the law for the time period during which it was passed. I understand that blacks were not allowed to vote due to discrimination and racism. FTR, this discrimination and racism did not ONLY happen in southern states.

However, just because some areas (like Sandy Springs, King's Mountain) are willing to jump through these hoops 45 years after this law was passed does not mean that everyone is willing to do so. It also does not mean that the law is constitutional.

I would suggest that if the VRA was not present we still have plenty of folks who will monitor the situation and quickly jump on anything suspicious.

It's interesting that the only violations I have been able to find for Novemner 2012 elections involve the opposite side of the coin (Voter Fraud) and nothing has been done about it.

It's time, in my humble opinion, for some common sense and less big brother looking to hard in only one direction or the other.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Antonio Moss
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2006
28831 posts

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 it's unconstitutional, yes.

That's the entire purpose of the Republic and why we are not, in any way, shape or form, a democracy.






Back to top
Crimson1st
Alabama Fan
Birmingham, AL
Member since Nov 2010
1696 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

That's the entire purpose of the Republic and why we are not, in any way, shape or form, a democracy.


Yes, we are a Republic BUT we are a Constitutional Republic. The most important part being "Constitutional". That is by far the biggest safeguard of our individual rights in any of this because even a Republic can be over-run by a mob rule mentality which at any given time could trample on the rights of the minority without an extra safeguard.






Back to top
Antonio Moss
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2006
28831 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

a Republic can be over-run by a mob rule mentality



Meh, I'm assuming you think than a Republic is simply a Representative Democracy. It's not.

A Constitutional Republic is simply a Republic whose cornerstone of law is a Constitution.






Back to top
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
17433 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


This reminds me of one of the biggest criticisms of Israel - after 65 years of existence, it still has no constitution.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
17433 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


Here's a question for the posters on this board: Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to speculate on and/or impugn the motives of the 110th Congress when they voted 488-38 to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2007?





Back to top
lsuprof
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Member since Dec 2008
342 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


What strikes me about this point is that attributing motive without evidence is exactly what the VRA does. It attributes racist motives to the actions of officials in covered states without evidence of such motives. A city with a large minority population wants to annex an adjoining (white) community to increase its tax base? No evidence needed--it must be because the city wants to dilute black voting strength. A state wants to draw compact congressional districts? No evidence needed--it must be because the state wants to dilute minority black voting strength and deny black voters the right to "elect representatives of their choice." A covered state or local government wants to have at-large elections so that elected representatives do not represent insular geographic interests? No evidence needed--it must be because the state wants to dilute black voting strength and prevent the election of minority candidates.

The 1965 version of the VRA left it unclear as to whether it was necessary to demonstrate evidence of discriminatory intent or motive to invalidate an election law change by a covered jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that intent was the required legal standard and that the demonstration of a racial effect was inadequate. The 1982 amendments and reauthorization changed the burden of proof from "intent" to "effect" and hence attributed racist motives to any action that the politicized Justice Department said had a disparate racial effect. The shift from the "intent" standard to the "effect" standard meant that motives would be attributed to elected officials in covered jurisdictions without evidence.

What this all means is that there is plenty of motive impugning and speculating to go around with regard to the Voting Rights Act.







Back to top
Scoop
LSU Fan
Ecuador
Member since Sep 2005
27729 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


When the U.S. is taken down eventually, I would think the perfect model would be the U.S. Constitution with the caveat that there are voter restrictions based on having some skin in the game.

Let's not bull shite ourselves: We are going to go down because the producers are outnumbered by the non-producers. That and a unionized public sector.

our system is perfect without lazy union workers and a-holes that don't want to work.



This post was edited on 3/1 at 11:16 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
texashorn
Member since May 2008
1551 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer a tool of good, it's a bludgeon used to throw out what subjective members of the Justice Department think "should" be unconstitutional, even though the state practice has otherwise been found constitutional (the voting process itself is a state power, not federal).

I'm thinking of Texas, which passed a voter ID law that was very similar to one from Indiana, which had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Like lsuprof pointed out so well, all it takes is a subjective and often politically motivated bureaucrat in D.C. to cry foul, with little proof other than effect vs. intent, and what is constitutional for the rest of the country will not apply.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46300 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


Yes, that is the job of the judge. To understand the process and the facts and apply them to the law.

How do you think they should reach decisions? Class solidarity?






Back to top
trackfan
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
17433 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


I heard an audio of a pretty intense exchange between Scalia and Sotomayor today, and Sotomayor summed up the crux of the matter IMO. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which in effect, put certain states and jurisdictions on probation until they demostrated a willingness to comply with the 15th Amendment. Who should get to decide when these states and jurisdictions should be taken off probation, the courts or Congress? Keep in mind that Congress originally put these places on probation and spelled out the requirements for taking them off probation. It's one thing for the Supreme Court to say that the 1966 Court erred when they upheld the V.R.A., but it's quite another for it to say that the V.R.A. was needed in 1965, but now it's time to toss it aside because all the covered states and jurisdictions have proven that they're deserving of being taken off probation. We know that the Supreme Court has the authority to detrmine the constitutionality of a law, but does it also have the authority to determine the necessity of a law?





Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
295846 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

So he used a bad example.

for the record it's not a bad example

congress can pass unconstitutional laws, and pass them unanimously. it's not like there is a hit squad in congress waiting to kill congress if they pass an unconstitutional law

the point of the USSC is to ensure what congress does is legal. it can't prevent congress from initially voting for the law






Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
295846 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to speculate on and/or impugn the motives of the 110th Congress when they voted 488-38 to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2007?

why wouldn't it be?

just because a recent congress continued to support a possibly unconstitutional law doesn't allow them to evade their intent






Back to top
SlowFlowPro
Stanford Fan
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
295846 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

probation

quote:

Keep in mind that Congress originally put these places on probation and spelled out the requirements for taking them off probation.

do you know the requirements to get off probation? do you know their costs?

i don't. since this is your angle, i'm wondering if you are educated on the cost-benefit of this process

quote:

but it's quite another for it to say that the V.R.A. was needed in 1965, but now it's time to toss it aside because all the covered states and jurisdictions have proven that they're deserving of being taken off probation.

the USSC does this all the time

the entire point of this law is due to temporary scenarios that existed approximately half a century ago

basically the USSC initially upheld this law due not to underlying law, but due to how they felt they should shape society

if we can't go back and examine how society has changed, then discussing this law is pointless






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

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

Here's a question for the posters on this board: Is it appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to speculate on and/or impugn the motives of the 110th Congress when they voted 488-38 to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2007?
MEH.

It isn't as if members of congress don't impugn he motives of the court REGULARLY. Honestly, I think it's a testament to professionalism that the court doesn't lash back more often.

I mean, if we put all the barbs Scalia has ever leveled at congress on one side, and all the barb leveled at Scalia by congreeman on the other, we all know which side of that scale is gonna tilt.






Back to top
ironsides
LSU Fan
Nashville, TN
Member since May 2006
6051 posts
 Online 

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


quote:

quote: Have they added Philadelphia yet???


One thing overlooked by a lot of folks is that the south has evolved. I am a New Yorker but have spent a significant amount of time in the south. Do racial problems exist? Yes but guess what they exist in New York and Pennsylvania too. It's intellectually lazy to think that this country hasn't grown.

I know u guys were talking about the black panthers in Philly and voting violations but I thought I'd bring up the point.

Bigger problem is wealth differential between rich and poor and the education system that the poor get but that has nothing to do with race.






Back to top
ljhog
Arkansas Fan
Lake Jackson, Tx.
Member since Apr 2009
9913 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


Quite simply it is time for states such as Texas to ignore the federal courts in this area and proceed with implementation of the laws the legislature passes.
Then see if Obama has the guts to send federal troops into the state to enforce the rulings of the court.






Back to top
I B Freeman
Member since Oct 2009
5488 posts

re: Scalia's racial entitlement remark


Until supporters of this part of the VRA call for the resignation of Holder's because of his treatment of the Philadelphia situation they have no real creditability.

Why would anyone concerned about protecting voter's rights from a racial standpoint think putting a federal political appointee like Eric Holder in a position of authority to protect those rights is any better than say the Governor of South Carolina?

Obviously the southern states are doing more to protect voter rights than is the Justice Department of the Federal government these days.

But to the original point--I see no Constitutional authority for the federal government to impose federal oversight over some states and not others. If you think that is ok then maybe Obama should just raise federal states in the states he carried since he so determined to raise taxes?



This post was edited on 3/2 at 9:31 am


Back to top


Back to top