• 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

sangha said:
Murder laws are only applied to those who commit murder
Click to expand...

No, they're not. What you're talking about is penalty, not law, and that's only after the trial and court process.
 
Tucker Case said:
My opinion of his motives was all that I was talking about, so why are you babbling about the 14th?
Click to expand...

What do you think people care about more; your opinion or the constitution?
 
Tucker Case said:
I don't really give a **** about the VRA. I'm making an overall point about the ****tiness of our SC justices. Scalia's not discussing constitutionality with his racial entitlement crap. He's just blowing his hyperpartisan load all over his own chin.
Click to expand...

Okay, well, I don't see that. He didn't invent the term, and it has been discussed, and it's a reasonably well known principle.
 
sangha said:
Murder laws are only applied to those who commit murder
Click to expand...

**** NO. That is a terrible argument.

This law is the equivalent of only prosecuting murder in 14 of the 50 states. Not. The. Same. Thing.
 
clownboy said:
And many more of them never being ended. But hey, I gave you one that's been running, and funded by government, beyond it's original need for 70 years now. Show your stuff.
Click to expand...

Nope, you haven't named one pgm that has never ended. Just ones that haven't ended yet

Nor have you shown that there's no longer any need for this law.
 
clownboy said:
No, they're not. What you're talking about is penalty, not law, and that's only after the trial and court process.
Click to expand...

So the laws crminalizing murder are not laws? :screwy

And the jurisdictions these laws applies to were subject to due process, AKA the legislative process
 
ReformCollege said:
**** NO. That is a terrible argument.

This law is the equivalent of only prosecuting murder in 14 of the 50 states. Not. The. Same. Thing.
Click to expand...

Murder laws apply to those for whom due process has shown to be guilty of murder

This laws applies to those for whom due process has shown to be guilty of discrimination
 
sangha said:
Murder laws apply to those for whom due process has shown to be guilty of murder

This laws applies to those for whom due process has shown to be guilty of discrimination
Click to expand...

Your argument is undermined by the fact that no other state or area has been brought to "court" in the last 50 years.
 
ReformCollege said:
Or maybe, that support over the VRA indicates declining discrimination?
Click to expand...
If you mean that such support indicates the people are less (purposely) discriminatory/racist which, in turn, decreases discrimination, then I agree.
 
sangha said:
Untrue. Several localities have been subject to court orders in the last few years
Click to expand...

SMH. If you think this law is applied equally to all states, there isn't much I can do for you.

Fact: Murder law applies everyone, not just those who have previously been convicted of murder.
Fact: VRA outlaws discriminatory laws by only those states who were guilty of discrimination 50 years ago. Case closed.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
If you mean that such support indicates the people are less (purposely) discriminatory/racist which, in turn, decreases discrimination, then I agree.
Click to expand...

Which is contradictory, because if the topic is discrimination then increased support for such a law undermines the actual need for it.
 
ReformCollege said:
What do you think people care about more; your opinion or the constitution?
Click to expand...

My opinion, especially if they are here at DP.

People are like Scalia. They'll **** all over the constitution when it serves their purposes.

But anyone here at a debate site wants to hear opinions.
 
clownboy said:
Okay, well, I don't see that. He didn't invent the term, and it has been discussed, and it's a reasonably well known principle.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he invented the term. But the term has precisely **** all to do with the constitutionality of the law. It's purely masturbatory partisanship.
 
ReformCollege said:
SMH. If you think this law is applied equally to all states, there isn't much I can do for you.

Fact: Murder law applies everyone, not just those who have previously been convicted of murder.
Fact: VRA outlaws discriminatory laws by only those states who were guilty of discrimination 50 years ago. Case closed.
Click to expand...

And VRA applies to every state, but like the murder laws, the sanctions only apply to those who have engaged in illegal behavior
 
ReformCollege said:
Which is contradictory, because if the topic is discrimination then increased support for such a law undermines the actual need for it.
Click to expand...
No, it's not contradictory because decreased discrimination does not mean that discrimination has reached such a low level that laws are no longer necessary to guard against it.
 
I think Scalia's words are quite clear, the intented meaning quite clear, and the point is well taken.

The only people who would take issue with them are those who make a living out of perpetuating racial division.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I think Scalia's words are quite clear, the intented meaning quite clear, and the point is well taken.

The only people who would take issue with them are those who make a living out of perpetuating racial division.
Click to expand...

The only people opposed to VRA are those whiners who are rending their garments over the diminishment of racial division
 
sangha said:
And VRA applies to every state, but like the murder laws, the sanctions only apply to those who have engaged in illegal behavior
Click to expand...

Only 14 states are required for preclearance from the Federal Gov. Every citizen is required to not murder someone.
 
ReformCollege said:
Only 14 states are required for preclearance from the Federal Gov. Every citizen is required to not murder someone.
Click to expand...

Only 14 states were found, by due process, to have engaged in discrimination of voters, so only 14 states were sanctioned

Murder laws do not place sanctions on everyone. Only those found guilty, by due process, of engaging in illegal behavior
 
sangha said:
Only 14 states were found, by due process, to have engaged in discrimination of voters, so only 14 states were sanctioned

Murder laws do not place sanctions on everyone. Only those found guilty, by due process, of engaging in illegal behavior
Click to expand...

This law isn't about sanctioning. Its about reviewing new laws on the books. If a I.D. card law is passed in both Pennsylvania and Georgia, only the one in Georgia is illegal because of digressions committed 50 years ago by a completely different group of people.
 
sangha said:
Murder laws apply to those for whom due process has shown to be guilty of murder

This laws applies to those for whom due process has shown to be guilty of discrimination
Click to expand...

OK, let's accept your argument, for the sake of argument. Most murderers (when and where it is not a capital offense) are eventually granted parole, when it is deemed that they are no longer a threat to continue to commit murder. One could also argue that some states which violated civil rights are no longer a threat to continue to violate civil rights, and should now be granted "parole".
 
ReformCollege said:
This law isn't about sanctioning. Its about reviewing new laws on the books. If a I.D. card law is passed in both Pennsylvania and Georgia, only the one in Georgia is illegal because of digressions committed 50 years ago by a completely different group of people.
Click to expand...

The requirement that they submit their voting regs to review is a sanction.
 
danarhea said:
OK, let's accept your argument, for the sake of argument. Murderers are eventually granted parole, when it is deemed that they are no longer a threat to continue to commit murder. One could also argue that some states which violated civil rights are no longer a threat to violate violate civil rights, and should now be granted "parole".
Click to expand...

Under VRA, any one of those 14 states can go to court and argue that they have changed enough to no longer warrant being subjected to the sanctions. If they prove their case, the court will lift the sanctions.
 
sangha said:
The requirement that they submit their voting regs to review is a sanction.
Click to expand...

So only states which were guilty of discrimination 50 years ago should be subject to discrimination laws? Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom