This is the kind of ideological excuses we've come to expect from the wingnuts and the supposed adherence to the Constitution.

  1. This post has been removed.

  2. This post has been removed.

  3. This post has been removed.

  4. This post has been removed.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    As usual, airborne shoots and misses...but his rant helps with his anger management.

    Here is more context of what Scalia said...

    This court doesn’t like to get involved in racial questions such as this one. It is something that can be left to Congress,” he said.

    But as the VRA came up for reauthorization in 1970, 1975, 1982, and then 2006, the number of senators voting against the measure declined until all opposition disappeared in 2006. Why is that? Justice Scalia asked. “I don’t think it is attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this,” he said. “I think it is very likely attributable to a phenomenon called perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

    “I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act,” Scalia said. “And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution.”

    Scalia added: “You have to show when you are treating different states differently that there’s a good reason for it.”

    That’s the concern, Scalia said. “This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress,” he added. “There are certain districts in the House [of Representatives] that are black districts by law.”

    The issue with the Voting Rights Act is, that it imposes federal control and serious burdens burdens on 9 states for no reason, other than the fact that in 1965 there was a serious, these states have less problem than other is unconstitutional to burden these states..

    As  Greg says....apply the Act to all states, or none...otherwise it is unconstitutional !


    "At one point, Justice Samuel Alito suggested to the solicitor general that perhaps Congress should impose Section 5 coverage on the entire country.

    Verrilli responded that Congress relied in part on statistics showing a higher rate of voting rights litigation in the existing covered jurisdictions.

    Justice Alito also asked about the fact that Congress relied on a 46-year-old formula to determine in 2006 which states would continue to be subject to Section 5 enforcement and which would not...

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    This idiot then goes on to argue the case for the lawyer representing Shelby Co.

    Who then replies that even he, the lawyer for the plaintiff, who's trying to win the case, doesn't agree with the wingnut Scalia's ridiculous argument.

    The exchange:

    Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." He said, "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked many questions in defense of the law, appeared taken aback by Scalia's insinuation. In the final moments of oral argument, she asked Bert Rein, the lawyer for the challengers, if he agrees.

    "Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?" she asked. When he ducked the question, she asked it again. He would not endorse Scalia's sentiment.

    Are your two posts supposed to make sesne, or are you just sputtering again?

    You don't see the problem with conflating the VRA and the Consitution as you have?

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    airhead only like prejudice when it suits his cause!

  8. This post has been removed.