"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes...[snip]Even the attorney representing Shelby County wouldn't agree with Scalia that the VRA was a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." But judging from the questions the five activist right-wing Rethuglican justices posed at the orals today, the VRA is hanging by a thread. Should it be struck down, it will be open season for Rethuglican legislatures in the South and elsewhere to proceed with their plans to disenfranchise as many minority voters as they can before the next election, through bogus voter i.d. and onerous voter registration laws.
"Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.ruRvAtZF.dpuf
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf
"First it
was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year
term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse,"
Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is
something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And
history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's
very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and
determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there
is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is
not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to
lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is
wonderful." - See more at:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf
