• 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

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:

"guilt by association"?

You mean like saying entilement?
 
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:

It takes a wacky sense of reality to think that areas which have had hundreds, and possible thousands, of voting rights violations in the recent past are being victimized by "guilt by association" when the truth is that they continue to demonstrate that they are unwilling or unable to protect the rights of all voters.

Even more absurd is the notion that the govt is somehow discriminating between "good discrimination" and "bad discrimination" when its' actions have only served to reduce discrimination.
 
It takes a wacky sense of reality to think that areas which have had hundreds, and possible thousands, of voting rights violations in the recent past are being victimized by "guilt by association" when the truth is that they continue to demonstrate that they are unwilling or unable to protect the rights of all voters.

Even more absurd is the notion that the govt is somehow discriminating between "good discrimination" and "bad discrimination" when its' actions have only served to reduce discrimination.

Have you seen the court approved (ordered?) Texas election district boundaries? They are intended to discriminate and even the judges drawing them have said so.
 
Have you seen the court approved (ordered?) Texas election district boundaries? They are intended to discriminate and even the judges drawing them have said so.

It is delusional to mischaracterize reality the way you are doing in your posts.
 
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:

That's funny. You act as if racism all died out in the 1960's, but there are plenty of black people in Florida who sued the state, and won, because they were not allowed to vote. Something to do with "felons lists" that even preachers ended up on.
 
That's funny. You act as if racism all died out in the 1960's, but there are plenty of black people in Florida who sued the state, and won, because they were not allowed to vote. Something to do with "felons lists" that even preachers ended up on.

What has that got to do with the VRA? The VRA does not preclude any lawsuits, it places "preclearance" provisions on voting law changes including drawing MANDATORY new district boundaries based on census data. Have you seen the court approved (ordered?) distrct shapes in the Dallas and San Antonio areas? The judges actually bragged how minority friendly they had made them.

After Court Rejects Discriminatory Redistricting Plan, New Texas Map Creates Four Additional Minority-Friendly Districts | ThinkProgress
 
What has that got to do with the VRA? The VRA does not preclude any lawsuits, it places "preclearance" provisions on voting law changes including drawing MANDATORY new district boundaries based on census data. Have you seen the court approved (ordered?) distrct shapes in the Dallas and San Antonio areas? The judges actually bragged how minority friendly they had made them.

After Court Rejects Discriminatory Redistricting Plan, New Texas Map Creates Four Additional Minority-Friendly Districts | ThinkProgress

According to your link, the judge did not say what you claim he said
 
I think it should either be expanded to cover all states or repealed/struck down.
 
What has that got to do with the VRA? The VRA does not preclude any lawsuits, it places "preclearance" provisions on voting law changes including drawing MANDATORY new district boundaries based on census data. Have you seen the court approved (ordered?) distrct shapes in the Dallas and San Antonio areas? The judges actually bragged how minority friendly they had made them.

After Court Rejects Discriminatory Redistricting Plan, New Texas Map Creates Four Additional Minority-Friendly Districts | ThinkProgress

I wouldn't call those districts minority friendly. I would call them constitutional. After all, don't you think minorities deserve a voice in government, or do you think it's OK to gerrymander districts so that they are all white?
 
I wouldn't call those districts minority friendly. I would call them constitutional. After all, don't you think minorities deserve a voice in government, or do you think it's OK to gerrymander districts so that they are all white?

Do you believe its okay to gerrymander a district so that it's mostly black?
 
I wouldn't call those districts minority friendly. I would call them constitutional. After all, don't you think minorities deserve a voice in government, or do you think it's OK to gerrymander districts so that they are all white?


I find it strange how flippantly people think race somehow transcends independent thought. Why should there be any difference to how a district is cut up in regards to race? The essence of separating ethnic/racial ghettos is itself racist. why would a forward thinking individual want be yo be a racist knuckle draggier? Right? Seperate is inherently unequal -- unless they are voting. Haha. What a sad joke of a country.
 
I wouldn't call those districts minority friendly. I would call them constitutional. After all, don't you think minorities deserve a voice in government, or do you think it's OK to gerrymander districts so that they are all white?

Just for jollies do a search for "districts that voted 100% for Romney" and see what you come up with. ;)
 
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.

I don't know how you got that interpretation, but ok, it's your opinion. My stance is that racism is always bad. It causes disharmony and many other problems in society. You, to me anyway, are saying that the past racism of some justifies using racism against their race. Racism, whether done for "good" or "ill", still is a bad policy. It still causes racial conflict. Using the government to enforce racist, sexist, etc, policy is unconstitutional and wrong, regardless of the race that is being "helped" or "harmed".
 
I don't know how you got that interpretation, but ok, it's your opinion. My stance is that racism is always bad. It causes disharmony and many other problems in society. You, to me anyway, are saying that the past racism of some justifies using racism against their race. Racism, whether done for "good" or "ill", still is a bad policy. It still causes racial conflict. Using the government to enforce racist, sexist, etc, policy is unconstitutional and wrong, regardless of the race that is being "helped" or "harmed".

So, you mean you are a racist if you cite only one race?
 
Back
Top Bottom