Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
Obama’s Wars

Obama’s Wars

By Bob Woodward
$15.00

Churchill

Churchill

By Paul Johnson
$14.97

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Renewal of Voting Rights Act a ‘Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement,’ Scalia Says

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 27, 2013
supreme court
Flickr / dbking

Certain Supreme Court justices were critical of the Voting Rights Act as they listened to oral arguments Wednesday in a case challenging a key portion of the civil rights legislation, signaling possible trouble for the provision. But perhaps none of the justices from the court’s majority conservative faction was as disparaging of the law as Antonin Scalia, who referred to its unanimous renewal in 2006 as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

According to Think Progress, Scalia’s remark was met by “audible gasps” in the lawyer’s lounge, where members of the Supreme Court bar can listen to oral arguments.

The comment also led to a heated confrontation with fellow Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

MSNBC:

Scalia made the comments while discussing the unanimous re-authorization of the act passed by the Senate in 2006. According to Scalia, that vote indicates political fear among lawmakers more than any actual need for the protections provided by the law. “I don’t think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act,” he said. “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.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged Scalia’s comments, asking “Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?” She also asked “Do you think racial discrimination has ended?”

The comments came during a hearing in which the conservative and likely swing members of the court appeared ready to overturn the a key provision of the law because it was too “backward looking.”

Read more

—Posted by Tracy Bloom.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.