Oh, don't worry. After the self-imposed death by bile injection of the Tea Party and after the putrid lingering death rattle from the five necrophilous toadies that make up the majority of SCOTUS, the media will resurrect once more the death worshippers to carry on the eternal political struggle to benefit the makers of of low-T treatments, hemorrhoid interventions, and the University of Phoenix. Until such time, we can only marvel and gasp at the pace that intellectual integrity now degenerates into openly-fascist froth.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act, which gave African-Americans in the deep South access to the ballot box, is a “racial entitlement,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday as the court heard oral arguments in a legal challenge to the landmark law from the state of Alabama.
The outspoken, ultraconservative Scalia discounted the fact that Congress has repeatedly reenacted the law — most recently by a 99-0 Senate vote in 2006 — and argued that its renewal is “not the kind of question you can leave to Congress.”
“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said. “They are going to lose votes if they do not re-enact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future? I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity.
“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through normal political processes.”
The case of Shelby County vs. Holder is a challenge to the landmark Section 5 of the act. It requires nine states (eight in the South) as well as local governments in other states to “pre-clear” changes in voting procedures with the U.S. Department of Justice. The act has been invoked as recently as the 2012 election, in which several state legislatures made rules changes designed to impede early voting.
The Voting Rights Act appears to have solid support from the Supreme Court’s four moderate-progressive justices. But it faced hostile questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts. He asked Solicitor General Donald Verrelli if “the citizens of the South are more racist than citizens of the North.”
It's worth noting that the one state not in the South with the preclearance requirement is Alaska. (News articles almost never note this.) This is because of substantial discrimination that has gone on against Alaska Natives, some of which continues to this day. (It's no surprise that the Republican Parnell administration is supporting Shelby County in the case.) The VRA is absolutely necessary to keep these sorts of persecutions from reappearing or increasing.ReplyDelete