• 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:
You still can't quote where the VRA says it only applies to certain specific states

Your argument is that because only murderers are jailed, the murder laws do not apply to all :screwy
Click to expand...

Let's see where it says that all states have to have pre-clearance for new laws?

It doesn't, they made the judgement on which states need pre-clearance at one time, and haven't revised that list since.
 
ReformCollege said:
You do know the difference between section 2 and section 5 don't you? Section 5 is still running based on the 1972 (it was updated by an amendment) formula on which states have to cooperate with section 5. Everyone else understands that, seemingly except for you.
Click to expand...

And nothing I've said could leave you with the impression that I said anything different

Obviously, you've run out of steam, and are now desperately fishing for something to disagree with
 
ReformCollege said:
Let's see where it says that all states have to have pre-clearance for new laws?
Click to expand...

The same place murder laws say that every person has to apply for parole before being released

It doesn't, they made the judgement on which states need pre-clearance at one time, and haven't revised that list since.
Click to expand...

Actually, the list has been changed. Several areas have gone to court and argued that they should be removed from the list of covered areas and won.
 
Being married to a Native American (she has a card that verifies she is) and a brother in law to a Mexican American and the grandfather of Emiliano, I tire of minority compalints. Get a life.
 
sangha said:
The same place murder laws say that every person has to apply for parole before being released
Click to expand...

States aren't people. :roll:

sangha said:
Actually, the list has been changed. Several areas have gone to court and argued that they should be removed from the list of covered areas and won.
Click to expand...
Several counties you mean. But the point remains that a voter ID law in Rhode Island is a-okay but one in South Carolina got struck down by the Justice Department and pretty much guarantees that they will remain on the list for the next 10 years. That is, of course, if the Supreme Court doesn't strike down section 5 in the coming months.
 
sangha said:
And nothing I've said could leave you with the impression that I said anything different

Obviously, you've run out of steam, and are now desperately fishing for something to disagree with
Click to expand...

I could care less about disagreeing with you. All that matters is what the SCOTUS agrees or disagrees with.
 
ReformCollege said:
States aren't people. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, and lions aren't tigers


Several counties you mean. But the point remains that a voter ID law in Rhode Island is a-okay but one in South Carolina got struck down by the Justice Department and pretty much guarantees that they will remain on the list for the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

And there's nothing wrong with that
 
VanceMack said:
I'd offer my opinion on constitutional law and the decisions of the SCOTUS, but then...anything I say would just be based on my opinion about an issue and not an actual formal education in law.
Click to expand...

You mean sorta like Tucker's rant about Scalia ruling not on the constitutionality of any given argument, but of his own personal biases and prejudices. Any ruling by Scalia, contrary to Tuckers opinion on said constitutionality, is merely Scalia being Scalia; which of course means that Scalia doesn't care about the law, similar to the way Tucker sees it, only Scalia's own version of it. Isn't that kind of how all the Justices rule on anything brought before them? Our prejudices and biases do not derive out of any magical hyper partisan box; they are, instead, a collection of truisms that we develop over our entire existence. It doesn't mean that they are immutable, only that they (our opinions) are tried and tested, and for the individual, mostly accurate when challenged.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
You mean sorta like Tucker's rant about Scalia ruling not on the constitutionality of any given argument, but of his own personal biases and prejudices. Any ruling by Scalia, contrary to Tuckers opinion on said constitutionality, is merely Scalia being Scalia; which of course means that Scalia doesn't care about the law, similar to the way Tucker sees it, only Scalia's own version of it. Isn't that kind of how all the Justices rule on anything brought before them? Our prejudices and biases do not derive out of any magical hyper partisan box; they are, instead, a collection of truisms that we develop over our entire existence. It doesn't mean that they are immutable, only that they (our opinions) are tried and tested, and for the individual, mostly accurate when challenged.


Tim-
Click to expand...
ALL of the justices are opinionated. They all have a slant. Thats undeniable. So does EVERY PERSON that comments on their positions.

I think a thinking person would look at the black community in America and recognize they have been victimized by their 'leader' and politicians over the last 150 years or so. The black communities, especially in inner cities, have been stagnant, or worse. While some move up and out, the vast majority are suffering from the burden of all that 'assistance'. Its not getting better, and it wont. I suspect thats where Scalia was coming from.
 
VanceMack said:
ALL of the justices are opinionated. They all have a slant. Thats undeniable. So does EVERY PERSON that comments on their positions.

I think a thinking person would look at the black community in America and recognize they have been victimized by their 'leader' and politicians over the last 150 years or so. The black communities, especially in inner cities, have been stagnant, or worse. While some move up and out, the vast majority are suffering from the burden of all that 'assistance'. Its not getting better, and it wont. I suspect thats where Scalia was coming from.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but because the problem is not an official platform of the democrats, and conspiracy theory aside, the fact remains that the biggest detriment to black culture in the US over the last 100 or so years is the democratic machine. They're simply dumb voters, and they come relatively cheap.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
You mean sorta like Tucker's rant about Scalia ruling not on the constitutionality of any given argument, but of his own personal biases and prejudices. Any ruling by Scalia, contrary to Tuckers opinion on said constitutionality, is merely Scalia being Scalia; which of course means that Scalia doesn't care about the law, similar to the way Tucker sees it, only Scalia's own version of it. Isn't that kind of how all the Justices rule on anything brought before them? Our prejudices and biases do not derive out of any magical hyper partisan box; they are, instead, a collection of truisms that we develop over our entire existence. It doesn't mean that they are immutable, only that they (our opinions) are tried and tested, and for the individual, mostly accurate when challenged.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Ah, but you seem to be forgetting: Jusrices are not suposed to be guided by political agendas.

I don't give a **** about whether or not I agree with a justice's assessment of constitutionality. That's not what my rant was about. My rant was about hypocricy. About supporting a position when it suits your political agenda and then taking a hot **** on top of it when it doesn't suit your political agenda. Almost all of th eJustices do that. They are ALL judicial activists. Every single goddamned one of them.
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah, but you seem to be forgetting: Jusrices are not suposed to be guided by political agendas.

I don't give a **** about whether or not I agree with a justice's assessment of constitutionality. That's not what my rant was about. My rant was about hypocricy. About supporting a position when it suits your political agenda and then taking a hot **** on top of it when it doesn't suit your political agenda. Almost all of th eJustices do that. They are ALL judicial activists. Every single goddamned one of them.
Click to expand...

To some extent I tend to agree, or agree more than I disagree, but I guess I didn't see the point of your rant then if that's what you were trying to say. Most sane people know that already, but your specific calling out Scalia led me to believe that Scalia was somehow worse than the others?


Tim-
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah, but you seem to be forgetting: Jusrices are not suposed to be guided by political agendas.

I don't give a **** about whether or not I agree with a justice's assessment of constitutionality. That's not what my rant was about. My rant was about hypocricy. About supporting a position when it suits your political agenda and then taking a hot **** on top of it when it doesn't suit your political agenda. Almost all of th eJustices do that. They are ALL judicial activists. Every single goddamned one of them.
Click to expand...

And I would add that it's considered a breach of ethics for a judge to state his political beliefs related to an issue that has come before him or her
 
sangha said:
And I would add that it's considered a breach of ethics for a judge to state his political beliefs related to an issue that has come before him or her
Click to expand...

You're naive.


Tim-
 
I can understand John Lewis' getting upset about the remarks. Granted he went through a lot of ****, back in the day. But voting is protected under the 15th Amendment (and others), and therefore additional laws seem redundant at this point. No doubt these particular states also have laws protecting the right to vote. Frankly I think that's what Scalia is shooting for, though he may have phrased it a bit blunt for the sensitive. We should strive to remove laws that are unnecessary once they're no longer needed, and I think this will help heal the racial gap in the long run.
 
Hicup said:
Agreed, but because the problem is not an official platform of the democrats, and conspiracy theory aside, the fact remains that the biggest detriment to black culture in the US over the last 100 or so years is the democratic machine. They're simply dumb voters, and they come relatively cheap.


Tim-
Click to expand...
Its not like LBJ didnt make it pretty clear what he thought of the black voting bloc. Its also not like there arent countless examples across the country of just how effective all that 'help' has been.
 
Hicup said:
To some extent I tend to agree, or agree more than I disagree, but I guess I didn't see the point of your rant then if that's what you were trying to say. Most sane people know that already, but your specific calling out Scalia led me to believe that Scalia was somehow worse than the others?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Scalia pisses me off more than others because, more than any other justice, when he ****s on his own arguments in favor of his political agenda, he is ****ting on arguments I actually agree with. His hypocrisy is the most irritating to me because of that.
 
Tucker Case said:
Scalia pisses me off more than others because, more than any other justice, when he ****s on his own arguments in favor of his political agenda, he is ****ting on arguments I actually agree with. His hypocrisy is the most irritating to me because of that.
Click to expand...

Can you give me a specific example?

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Can you give me a specific example?

Tim-
Click to expand...

The best possible example is how he ****s all over his own ideology in his dissent on the Arizona immigration bill in order to argue against state's rights when it comes to residency laws, but in favor of state's rights when it comes to opposing illegal immigrants. It is, IMHO, the most glaring example of open hypocrisy I have ever read from any justice ever. He actually quotes the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions to support one position, and then argues against the very position that those resolutions were intended to promote. Truly fascinating hypocrisy in its extreme audacity.

Also, how he **** all over state's rights with the McDonald v. Chicago decision. That one is an example where I have openly pointed out my own hypocrisy for being happy about the local effects of the decision (because it directly affected me positively as a resident of Chicago) despite the fact that I abhor the fact that it further undermines my position (and what I believe to be a very strict constitutional position) of dual federalism.
 
Tucker Case said:
The best possible example is how he ****s all over his own ideology in his dissent on the Arizona immigration bill in order to argue against state's rights when it comes to residency laws, but in favor of state's rights when it comes to opposing illegal immigrants. It is, IMHO, the most glaring example of open hypocrisy I have ever read from any justice ever. He actually quotes the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions to support one position, and then argues against the very position that those resolutions were intended to promote. Truly fascinating hypocrisy in its extreme audacity.

Also, how he **** all over state's rights with the McDonald v. Chicago decision. That one is an example where I have openly pointed out my own hypocrisy for being happy about the local effects of the decision (because it directly affected me positively as a resident of Chicago) despite the fact that I abhor the fact that it further undermines my position (and what I believe to be a very strict constitutional position) of dual federalism.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I'll have to check it for myself, thanks for the start.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Interesting, I'll have to check it for myself, thanks for the start.


Tim-
Click to expand...

No problem. The one that pissed me off the most was the Arizona immigration one. I've been using the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions for years to make multiple immigration arguments. I used it to defend Arizona's right to pass the law in question... despite my own vehement political disagreement with the law (I would actively oppose such a law being passed in Illinois).

I have the expectation that a Supreme Court justice should be capable of the same degree of objectivity on a constitutional argument that I am capable of. I do not allow my own personal political views to influence my assessment of constitutionality. they should not do so either. It's one thing to have an underlying philosophy which guides their understanding of the constitution. I support all Justices having that and using it consistently. It's the lack of consistency that pisses me off. The blatant hypocrisy.

Scalia pisses me off the most because when it does suit his purposes, he makes the argument I would make. When it doesn't suit his purposes, he'll undermine the **** out of those same arguments.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It should be redesigned to stop discrimination/intimidation for everyone and not just select groups.
 
American said:
I can understand John Lewis' getting upset about the remarks. Granted he went through a lot of ****, back in the day. But voting is protected under the 15th Amendment (and others), and therefore additional laws seem redundant at this point. No doubt these particular states also have laws protecting the right to vote. Frankly I think that's what Scalia is shooting for, though he may have phrased it a bit blunt for the sensitive. We should strive to remove laws that are unnecessary once they're no longer needed, and I think this will help heal the racial gap in the long run.
Click to expand...

I did not think you believed in an activist supreme court. Do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom