Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

By Orville Schell and David Shambaugh

more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

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

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.


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.

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

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.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook