• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Lol! Its only activist when its against what you believe, right?


Activist judges ignore the constitution. It's a pretty simple distinctions mister (LOL) "libertarian".
 
Umm, the racial entitlement claim wasn't a question

And his statement reveals a profound lack of understanding of how our govt works and his own belief in "limited gubmint".

It's not the job of the judicial branch to do the legislatives' heavy lifting. A future court could use that logic to say that since tax cuts are "very difficult to get them out through the normal political process", the court should invalidate any tax cut.


What an outrageous lie. He did NOT say "limited gubmint" - though you FALSELY put in quotes to claim he did.

And since it is a totally lying and sneering false quote, of course justabubba and LiberalAvenger love it. The bigger and more insulting the lie, the better.:roll:
 
Activist judges ignore the constitution. It's a pretty simple distinctions mister (LOL) "libertarian".

You're missing the point. I'm not pro life, but its funny how the left thinks that Roe v Wade isn't activist but whenever its something that they don't agree with it is.
 
What an outrageous lie. He did NOT say "limited gubmint" - though you FALSELY put in quotes to claim he did.

And since it is a totally lying and sneering false quote, of course justabubba and LiberalAvenger love it. The bigger and more insulting the lie, the better.:roll:

This may surprise you, but quotation marks have uses beyond the mere quoting of what someone said.

For example, I could say that I found your response to be quite...umm "enlightening"
 
This may surprise you, but quotation marks have uses beyond the mere quoting of what someone said.

For example, I could say that I found your response to be quite...umm "enlightening"

So you were quoting yourself and then silently put it into a Supreme Court Justice's mouth to sneer at him for being igorant for using our mispronounciation - when it was your words. Got it.
 
"Civil rights leaders outraged" = rich professional racebaiters seek publicity.
 
So you were quoting yourself and then silently put it into a Supreme Court Justice's mouth to sneer at him for being igorant for using our mispronounciation - when it was your words. Got it.

It seems that when it comes to the many ways quotation marks can be used, you're just not "getting it"
 
It seems that when it comes to the many ways quotation marks can be used, you're just not "getting it"


Yeah, I get it. I would venture that actually Scalia probably has a superior vocabulary to yours.
 
It should be redesigned to stop discrimination/intimidation for everyone and not just select groups.

Well, to put it in perspective, it wasn't everyone that was being lynched when they attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It was a select group.
 
Well, to put it in perspective, it wasn't everyone that was being lynched when they attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It was a select group.

Be careful, you may confuse him with facts.:mrgreen:
 
Well, to put it in perspective, it wasn't everyone that was being lynched when they attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It was a select group.

It rarely happened and doesn't happen anymore. So, let's join the modern world.
 
It rarely happened and doesn't happen anymore. So, let's join the modern world.

It happened in the last election and itis still happening, although much of it is done indirectly or in a stealth mode.

The purpose of it is to make it harder for democrats to vote.
 
It rarely happened and doesn't happen anymore. So, let's join the modern world.

That's BS. It happened a lot, but just like Holocaust deniers, there are some who are attempting to whitewash the murders that frequently happened in the South. And, as for that BS about it not happening any more, tell that to the family of James Byrd, who was lynched and dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, just a few short years ago. Now, it is true that such incidents are rare today, but Mississippi and other Southern states don't deserve the credit for that. Credit the Federal government that sent troops in to restore order, and who passed Title V. Without the Federal government intervening, lynchings would still be common in the South.

Yes, Virginia, Mississippi Burning was real. Rosewood was real. And lynchings were very real. Here is a little something for the edification and education of the deniers:

 
That's BS. It happened a lot, but just like Holocaust deniers, there are some who are attempting to whitewash the murders that frequently happened in the South. And, as for that BS about it not happening any more, tell that to the family of James Byrd, who was lynched and dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, just a few short years ago. Now, it is true that such incidents are rare today, but Mississippi and other Southern states don't deserve the credit for that. Credit the Federal government that sent troops in to restore order, and who passed Title V. Without the Federal government intervening, lynchings would still be common in the South.

Yes, Virginia, Mississippi Burning was real. Rosewood was real. And lynchings were very real. Here is a little something for the edification and education of the deniers:




Those are the deaths that we know about. Many black people used to disappear in those days.
 
Looks like Scalia really stepped in it this time, but let's step back and examine what he said without a lot of emotion. Traditionally, Supreme Court justices have sometimes asked outrageous questions in the course of their questioning. Sometimes they play Devil's advocates. And, in order to decide cases, questions like these must sometimes be asked, in order to cover all aspects of a case, even if some of those aspects are ridiculous on their faces.

So what do you think Scalia had in mind when he asked those questions? I believe he was addressing a very political aspect of Title V, that many people actually believe, and it could be that he is putting the issue to rest, rather than intending to create an incinidary situation.

What do YOU think?

Article is here.

Actually, I agree with him on this. Although the court should not legislate, it should determine accurately that a law is or is not constitutional. What majority it passed in Congress has absolutely no bearing on constitutionality. Any law that does not apply equally to all Americans should be considered and is Unconstitutional. Whether it is voting rights, affirmative action or any other thing.

Yes, there has been a cultural of "racial" entitlement. Any law that is not applicable to all and gives greater protections or rights to any group based upon race, is racist. Any applicable based upon sex, is sexist. etc. There should be absolutely no law which gives special protections or rights to any groups based upon race, sex, etc. This includes "hate" crime laws.
 
It happened in the last election and itis still happening, although much of it is done indirectly or in a stealth mode.

The purpose of it is to make it harder for democrats to vote.
Especially the dead ones.
 
Actually, I agree with him on this. Although the court should not legislate, it should determine accurately that a law is or is not constitutional. What majority it passed in Congress has absolutely no bearing on constitutionality. Any law that does not apply equally to all Americans should be considered and is Unconstitutional. Whether it is voting rights, affirmative action or any other thing.

Yes, there has been a cultural of "racial" entitlement. Any law that is not applicable to all and gives greater protections or rights to any group based upon race, is racist. Any applicable based upon sex, is sexist. etc. There should be absolutely no law which gives special protections or rights to any groups based upon race, sex, etc. This includes "hate" crime laws.

I agree that there has been a culture of entitlement. This culture of entitlement consists mainly of white people who feel entitled to depress the non-white vote in America, and dilute representation in Congress of those who are not white. A case in point is right here in Texas, where Perry and his cronies attempted to take away Vietnamese American representation in Congress by carving up a district that is mainly Vietnamese, and stuffing the pieces into 3 overwhelmingly white districts, where Congressman Vo would not stand a chance in hell of being elected, and the Vietnamese Americans in Houston would no longer have a say in government. Yes, some white people felt very entitled to do that, but the Voting Rights Act said no to white entitlement, in this case. :mrgreen:
 
I agree that there has been a culture of entitlement. This culture of entitlement consists mainly of white people who feel entitled to depress the non-white vote in America, and dilute representation in Congress of those who are not white. A case in point is right here in Texas, where Perry and his cronies attempted to take away Vietnamese American representation in Congress by carving up a district that is mainly Vietnamese, and stuffing the pieces into 3 overwhelmingly white districts, where Congressman Vo would not stand a chance in hell of being elected, and the Vietnamese Americans in Houston would no longer have a say in government. Yes, some white people felt very entitled to do that, but the Voting Rights Act said no to white entitlement, in this case. :mrgreen:

I don't see it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion. The redistricting plan was based, imo, on reducing or not allowing a growth in the number of guaranteed liberal districts. Trying to make sure there is "representatives" of a particular race is just wrong to me. One person, one vote. Rigging districts just to make sure race or a particular political philosophy is going to win is wrong. BTW, is this rep from Houston Vietnamese or American, he can't be both. And how do you know he wouldn't win which ever new district he ends up in, just because a larger number of voters are white. Apparently you presume bias and racism because someone is white, that is racism also.
 
I don't see it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion. The redistricting plan was based, imo, on reducing or not allowing a growth in the number of guaranteed liberal districts. Trying to make sure there is "representatives" of a particular race is just wrong to me. One person, one vote. Rigging districts just to make sure race or a particular political philosophy is going to win is wrong. BTW, is this rep from Houston Vietnamese or American, he can't be both. And how do you know he wouldn't win which ever new district he ends up in, just because a larger number of voters are white. Apparently you presume bias and racism because someone is white, that is racism also.

It is not racist to remember history, and black bodies hanging from trees in the South. Seems you are attempting to turn these crimes around and make them acceptable by arguing that those who did not like the lynchings are the real racists. LOL.
 
What's a the avoidance we're seeing here for the practical solution that is keeping the VRA and making it applicable to all? Is this some sort of social NIMBY bull****?
 
Rich "civil rights leaders" are in the profession of being outraged to try to gain self attention.
 
It is not racist to remember history, and black bodies hanging from trees in the South. Seems you are attempting to turn these crimes around and make them acceptable by arguing that those who did not like the lynchings are the real racists. LOL.

It seems you favor guilt by association, thus a never ending control of many southern state's voting distrct bondaries and ID laws by "other" wiser folks from different states. Gerrymandering for "good" is somehow seen as justice, or some sort of payback (reparations?) for acts of long dead folks. One must not prove any discrimination to get the district boundaries changed, simply suggest that another version would be "better" in their "enlightened" view in order to achieve "greater minority representation". Thus we have defined "good" racial/ethnic discrimination that is now legally required only in "known bad" states/districts making it all somehow more "fair". Of course these "fair" districts take into account only the content of one's character and not the color of one's skin just as MLK had in his dream. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom