Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 217

Thread: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

  1. #11
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    I agree that it's unfair that these rules only apply to some states and not others. Provisions to stop discrimination should be implemented nationwide, not just towards the worst offenders.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #12
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,662

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    All the efforts at curbing early voting and implementing voter I.d laws says otherwise. Racism still exists in our politics, which was what the voting rights act was meant to stop.
    Because photo IDs are racist?

  3. #13
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I don't know that he was intending to be incendiary. I think he was just stating what's on his mind. Unfortunately, what was on his mind turned out to be ignorant and seems to embody a very common misunderstanding with conservatism about arguments put forth in favor of things like the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action and other anti-discrimination laws and policies. In my experience, conservatives tend to see these things as unnecessary because they do not believe that a level of discrimination that would warrant such policies exists in the modern day.

    Because of this disbelief, they assume that those who advocate such policies are doing so for reasons other than genuinely trying combat discrimination. Because of that assumption, they assume that those who advocate for those policies on the basis of fighting discrimination are being disingenuous. Because they believe they are being disingenuous, they look for other possible motivations. The motivations these conservative nonbelievers ascribe to their "opponents" tend to be "race baiting," "playing the race card" and, in Scalia's case, "perpetuation of racial entitlement."

    In short, Scalia doesn't see a level of discrimination that would warrant the support the VRA has gotten over the years. Therefore, he assumes everybody who supports it just thinks non-whites are entitled to special treatment rather than genuinely trying to fight discrimination. Since I don't believe for a second that this is case with most people who support the VRA, I think Scalia isn't qualified to make this decision. This is just one more reason why I voted for Barack Obama - conservative judges tend to be disconnected from reality.
    I often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with SCOTUS opinions. But to presume the justices know less than you about the policies, laws and politics they deal with every day is self-serving to the extreme.

    The VRA was unconstitutional from the get-go (as detailed many times here). The court at the time allowed it, as they sometimes do, as a temporary measure to restore constitutional balance. There just wasn't any other way to get to equal voting rights as guaranteed by the constitution as quickly as we did. But once the unconstitutional nature outweighs the need, the time for the temporary fix is done.

    Discussion of Affirmative Action and other anti-discrimination laws does not fit here, as they are all applied equally - the VRA is not.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The voting rights act is flawed on many levels, although good in its overall intent. The idea is that since many "tricks" were employed to skirt the allowing of all citizens to vote in "some states" that those states must have any "law" changes affecting voting precleared by federal authorities.

    1) That violates the 14th amendment for equal protection of the law, since an identical (voter ID) law is permitted in a "good" state yet denied in a "bad" state.

    2) It strips these state's legislatures of their right to draw congressional districts, while allowing that very thing in other states; either all district boundaries must pass these "tests" or none should.

    3) It assumes that race and ethnicity defines voting patterns - while statistically that may be valid, it certainly makes demorat/republicant outcomes a federal matter and not a state matter - violating the 10th amendment.

    4) Using race and ethnicity for "good" purposes is not more legal than using those same factors for "bad" purposes.

    5) Intentionally creating concentrated "majority minority" districts using racial/ethnic factors, is EQUALLY DISCRIMINATORY as intentionally diluting that "minority vote" by drawing crazy looking district boundaries. Look at some of the "approved" district shapes created under this loony law - they virtually guarantee demorat congressional seats in very red states. Many of these states have republicant senators and governors yet many demorat House congress critters, by creating these mandatory majority minority districts.



    Court-drawn congressional map released for 2012 [Updated] - PoliTex



    Texas Voter District Maps Rejected by U.S. Judges - Businessweek
    Damn. I was gonna post on this thread, but I can't follow this.

    Very astute and accurate post.

  5. #15
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    His job has nothing to do with why it has been passed or what phenomena are involved in it's passing. His job is to assess it's constitutionality. Unfortunately, like many on the court, Scalia doesn't really give a **** about that. He'll find a way to consider anything that fits his personal political views "constitutional" and he'll make sure that he considers anything that doesn't fit with his political views "unconstitutional", regardless of what intellectual acrobatics he has to go through in order to do that. Hell, he'll even contradict his own previous positions if it promotes his agenda to do so.

    Very few of our current justices actually give a **** about constitution, IMO.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    I don't know that he was intending to be incendiary. I think he was just stating what's on his mind. Unfortunately, what was on his mind turned out to be ignorant and seems to embody a very common misunderstanding with conservatism about arguments put forth in favor of things like the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action and other anti-discrimination laws and policies. In my experience, conservatives tend to see these things as unnecessary because they do not believe that a level of discrimination that would warrant such policies exists in the modern day.

    Because of this disbelief, they assume that those who advocate such policies are doing so for reasons other than genuinely trying combat discrimination. Because of that assumption, they assume that those who advocate for those policies on the basis of fighting discrimination are being disingenuous. Because they believe they are being disingenuous, they look for other possible motivations. The motivations these conservative nonbelievers ascribe to their "opponents" tend to be "race baiting," "playing the race card" and, in Scalia's case, "perpetuation of racial entitlement."

    In short, Scalia doesn't see a level of discrimination that would warrant the support the VRA has gotten over the years. Therefore, he assumes everybody who supports it just thinks non-whites are entitled to special treatment rather than genuinely trying to fight discrimination. Since I don't believe for a second that this is case with most people who support the VRA, I think Scalia isn't qualified to make this decision. This is just one more reason why I voted for Barack Obama - conservative judges tend to be disconnected from reality.
    Or maybe, that support over the VRA indicates declining discrimination?

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    His job has nothing to do with why it has been passed or what phenomena are involved in it's passing. His job is to assess it's constitutionality. Unfortunately, like many on the court, Scalia doesn't really give a **** about that. He'll find a way to consider anything that fits his personal political views "constitutional" and he'll make sure that he considers anything that doesn't fit with his political views "unconstitutional", regardless of what intellectual acrobatics he has to go through in order to do that. Hell, he'll even contradict his own previous positions if it promotes his agenda to do so.

    Very few of our current justices actually give a **** about constitution, IMO.
    Violates the 14th Amendment = violates the constitution.

  8. #18
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    Violates the 14th Amendment = violates the constitution.
    Only when it serves Scalia's political agenda.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Only when it serves Scalia's political agenda.
    Your opinion on his motives does not change the law's unconstitutionality.

  10. #20
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Civil rights leaders outraged over Scalia’s ‘racial entitlement’ argument

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Only when it serves Scalia's political agenda.
    Not in this case at least. C'mon Tucker you have to admit the VRA clearly violates the 14th and is not applied equally.

Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •