| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
John Lewis to Justice Scalia: The right to vote is ‘what people died for, bled for’
Morgan Whitaker
7:03 PM on 02/27/2013
Rev. Al Sharpton says he could not believe his ears Wednesday morning when he heard the arguments in the Supreme Court to overturn Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Rep. John Lewis joins Sharpton to talk about expectations and implications of the anticipated case decision.
Congressman John Lewis, a hero of the civil-rights movement, said he was appalled to hear Justice Antonin Scalia refer to the Voting Rights Act as a “racial entitlement” today. Rep. Lewis was at the nation’s highest court to listen to arguments about whether the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be struck down as unconstitutional.
“It was unreal, unbelievable, almost shocking, for a member of the court to use certain language,” he said “I can see politicians and even members of Congress–it is just appalling to me.”
For Lewis, the comments were especially offensive because he knows from experience how hard he and others fought to win those rights. He was severely beaten by Alabama state troopers as he marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Al., on March 7, 1965, a date that’s now known as Bloody Sunday.
“It is an affront to all of what the civil rights movement stood for, what people died for, what people bled for, and those of us who marched across that bridge 48 years ago, we didn’t march for some racial entitlement,” he said. “We wanted to open up the political process, and let all of the people come in, and it didn’t matter whether they were black or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native American.”
Reverend Al Sharpton, who was also in the court, called Scalia’s words “shocking.”
“How is that an entitlement?” Sharpton asked “I thought African-Americans were citizens! For us to have the right to vote protected is some kind of entitlement program?”
Lewis agreed, calling the right to vote “precious, almost sacred… It is the most powerful nonviolent instrument that we have in a democratic society. And if the courts come to that point where they declare this section, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, unconstitutional, it would be a dagger in the heart of the democratic process.”
Unfortunately, the consensus emerging from those who were inside the court today is that Section 5′s future is probably limited, especially since likely swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to think the law had outlived its usefulness. At one point he compared it to the Marshall Plan, noting that it too “was a good thing at one time, but times change.”
Lewis is hopeful though, that most Americans believe in the Voting Rights Act. “I think the great majority of the people of our country believe, truly believe, that all of us have the right to vote, that our right to vote should be protected by the law of the land.”
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:02 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Scalia: Voting Rights Act Is ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’
By Nicole Flatow and Ian Millhiser on Feb 27, 2013 at 11:52 am
WASHINGTON, DC — There were audible gasps in the Supreme Court’s lawyers’ lounge, where audio of the oral argument is pumped in for members of the Supreme Court bar, when Justice Antonin Scalia offered his assessment of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. He called it a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
The comment came as part of a larger riff on a comment Scalia made the last time the landmark voting law was before the justices. Noting the fact that the Voting Rights Act reauthorization passed 98-0 when it was before the Senate in 2006, Scalia claimed four years ago that this unopposed vote actually undermines the law: “The Israeli supreme court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.”
That was an unusual comment when it was made, but Scalia’s expansion on it today raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes. Scalia noted when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965, it passed over 19 dissenters. In subsequent reauthorizations, the number of dissenters diminished, until it passed the Senate without dissent seven years ago. Scalia’s comments suggested that this occurred, not because of a growing national consensus that racial disenfranchisement is unacceptable, but because lawmakers are too afraid to be tarred as racists. His inflammatory claim that the Voting Rights Act is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement” came close to the end of a long statement on why he found a landmark law preventing race discrimination in voting to be suspicious.
It should be noted that even one of Scalia’s fellow justices felt the need to call out his remark. Justice Sotomayor asked the attorney challenging the Voting Right Act whether he thought voting rights are a racial entitlement as soon as he took the podium for rebuttal.
A transcript of the oral argument will be available soon, and we will post Scalia’s quote in its full context. We will also post audio of Scalia’s words when they become available. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:06 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The transcript of the oral argument is now available. Scalia’s full statement is copied below the fold:
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? |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:07 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| If you are on Facebook you can like ThinkProgress and they will post to your page. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:08 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Jennifer BenderyBecome a fan.
jen.bendery@huffingtonpost.com
Jim Clyburn: Antonin Scalia Rejects Voting Rights Act Because He's 'White And Proud'
Posted: 03/01/2013 4:25 pm EST | Updated: 03/01/2013 5:27 pm EST
WASHINGTON -– Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Friday that he was "absolutely shocked" to hear Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia describe a key piece of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most significant achievements of the civil rights movement, as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" earlier this week.
"I'm not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven't been in a long time," Clyburn said of Scalia's comments, during an interview with HuffPost. "What Justice Scalia said, to me, was, 'The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain't got no concerns for me because I'm white and proud.'"
Now the third most powerful Democrat in the House of Representatives, Clyburn's work on civil rights issues goes as far back as the age of 12, when he was elected president of his local NAACP youth chapter. He organized civil rights demonstrations in college, and even met his wife in jail after a protest.
Growing up in South Carolina, Clyburn said he "grew almost immune" to the racist comments being made around him. He said he will never forget hearing the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) defending his opposition to the 1957 Civil Rights Act by saying, in Clyburn's paraphrased words, "Our negroes are pleased with their plight."
Even though it's been more than 55 years since Thurmond's remarks, Clyburn said the same sentiment can be felt in comments like those made by Scalia. He pointed to a wave of state voting laws that made it harder to vote in the last election cycle as proof of the "obvious" need for the Voting Right Act to stay intact.
"When you have in 2012 ... states making changes to their laws that you can look on their face and see that these changes will make it harder for minorities to have their votes affect the results that they intend, you say that we don't need [the Voting Rights Act] anymore? Is this some kind of entitlement?" Clyburn asked. "Well, the Constitution of the U.S. is an entitlement for everybody."
A request for comment from a Supreme Court spokeswoman in response to Clyburn's remarks was not immediately returned.
The bottom line, said Clyburn, is that the 1965 civil rights law has "had a positive impact on the voting rights of people traditionally denied the right to vote. To ignore that, to me, is beyond the pale. It means you went to the bench with an agenda."
He added, "Playing around with the Voting Rights Act is playing with fire."
Also on HuffPost: |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
