Home > Entitlements, Politico, Scalia, SCOTUS, Uncategorized, Voting Right Act > Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement, Scaaaaallliiiiaaaaaaaa (Scalia)!

Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement, Scaaaaallliiiiaaaaaaaa (Scalia)!


The politicization of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has been evident for some time now, but we are now seeing decisions that demonstrate an amazingly racist, intellectually devoid, and judicially baseless rationales for judicial decisions. Judge (loosely used) Scalia is the embodiment of cancerous judicial activism that does not seek to interpret the constitutionality of laws, it appears that he only seeks to mode law into his warped political worldview.

The new approach to judicial decisions by this SCOTUS is extremely disturbing and warrants the public to be very leery of its decisions and logical leaps. The case of Shelby County v. Holder, which is about whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. This is the case that has shined an ugly light on the thinking (or lack thereof) of Scalia!

Scalia has crossed the line from just being a Supreme Court judge that only made very poor judgments into the realm of racial intolerance or just all out racism with his latest remarks. In the current case before the Supreme Court, Scalia referred to act of continuing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. A beautifully ugly and racist reference to an act that merely ensures the protection of minorities from discriminatory voting practices by certain states; which was predominately displayed in the election of 2012. His gigantically inappropriate reference to the right to vote as an “entitlement” only demonstrates his ignorance as to what an entitlement is and the stated purpose of the act itself.

Scalia’s rationale for opposition of the act is laced with stupidity and just all out preemptive assertions/justifications that have no base in fact and should not be exhibited by a member of the Supreme Court. Scalia rants by saying “initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it”. He then trolls on about how every-time they reenacted the law there was some measure of opposition to its re-adoption.

Scalia’s logic leap continues as he states that in the last re-enactment of the law there was a unanimous vote to extend the act and this is his rationale for calling the act of reenacting this provision of the law “perpetuation of racial entitlement“. His baseless and fatuous assertion is that the mere fact that the law was passed unanimously is evidence that the act should come into question.

Actually Scalia said it worst with this gem of moronic rationalizing “And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Under this warped logic, the fact that Scalia was confirmed to the bench by unanimous vote by Congress should put into question his nomination; which makes as much sense as what he stated. Scalia must have forgotten this fact before he made his statement.

Under Scalia’s logic prism (lacking logic of course), the universal agreement on something is suspect in the eyes of his court. The 422-0 vote honors approximately 20,000 Montford Point Marines are; SUSPECT TO SCALIA! President Obama’s budget OF 0212 was voted against 99-0; SUSPECT TO SCALIA! Puppies are cute; SUSPECT TO SCALIA! The sky is blue; SUSPECT TO SCALIA! America is great; SUSPECT TO SCALIA! The mere fact that it is unanimously agreed upon is SUSPECT TO SCALIA! Scalia is smart and deserving of his place in the SCOTUS; SUSPECT TO SCALIA (well actually there is merit to this assumption and it would never be unanimous)! Although this is hyperbolic banter, the point is made.

He starts his argument by saying “This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress.” Scalia then makes a manic magic act of non-logic, that parallels that of Houdini, states “And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.”. In this symphony of stupidity; Scalia both states that this is a matter for Congress and that without this court finding that does not comport with the Constitution it will pass forever, so the court should intervene. Which is it? Is it a fact that it does not comport with the Constitution, although it has been in place for more than 45 years or not?
The wording he uses “it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution” is curious to say the least. Scalia also states “they (those that vote against the act) are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act” and this is true; as it has always been. It has, and will forever be true, that when a politician votes for or against something it can should have a substantial negative or positive impact on his/her’s electability to their constituency. A politician’s voting record is the one thing that should be unarguably part of the public’s voting decision. The fact that Scalia misses this fundamental truth about the electoral process is confounding and only further enforces the fact that he is unworthy of the office in-which he has been appointed.

The ugly beauty that is Scalia’s logic ends with this gem of moronism,  Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?, this is a display of knowledge befitting that of the moss that grows under the rock which he crawled from under. Scalia evidently never heard of the Patriot Act, Post Office Accountability Act, The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, and a myriad of other nice sounding laws. The most disgraceful aspect of this ugly lightly laced with race-baiting soliloquy (disguised as a legal opinion) is that it was delivered by a member of the SCOTUS.

In a moment of clear protuberance of his mindset and capacity to oratorize, Scalia displayed a multitudinous number of nonsensical orations that is unworthy of some of the lamest bloggers (applicability to this blog NOTED!). Mark this as the day that every American, that repeats Scalia’s remarks in this case as note worthy or just, just got judicially dumber, more socially inappropriate, and intellectually lacking. One would expect to hear this kind of diatribe from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, or Savage (wiener) not a member of the nation’s highest court.

Evidently Scalia has missed the fact that Congress found that discrimination continues to play an active role in elections in the covered states, not  to mention those not covered by the act, based on 21 congressional hearings, the testimony of 90+ witnesses, and a 15,000-page record.

This thing called Scalia is unworthy of office. It may now be imperative that Congress use its power to alter the size of the Supreme Court to dis-empower this right-leaning SCOTUS. Congress should use their power over the Supreme Court to remove or suppress his ideology; and yes I WENT THERE! The transcript of Scalia’s statements in all its glory are below:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, maybe it was making that judgment, Mr. Verrilli. But that’s — that’s a problem that I have. This Court doesn’t like to get involved in — in racial questions such as this one. It’s something that can be left — left to Congress.

The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. 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.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact 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?

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: