Associate Justice Antonin Scalia And “Entitlement” To Voting Rights: An Outrage!

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been on the Supreme Court for 27 years now, has become a literal nightmare with so many inappropriate, arrogant statements on and off the Court in the past few years!

His latest outrage was in oral argument on the Voting Rights Act today in the Supreme Court, when he stated that the Voting Rights Act was a “racial entitlement”!

In so stating, he demonstrated that he has learned nothing about past racial discrimination and denial of the right to vote, which necessitated passage of that law in 1965!

With the record of many Republican states, particularly in the South, infamous for past discrimination and Jim Crow segregation laws when they were Democratic states, moving to make it more difficult to vote, as with Florida and Governor Rick Scott as just one example, how can anyone justify getting rid of the requirement of accountability on voting law changes by the federal government?

Voting should not be an “entitlement”, as it is a right that all Americans over the age of 18 should have, and no voter ID laws should be used to disenfranchise anyone, or require a 102 year old woman to have to wait six hours to vote in Florida or anywhere else!

Sadly, the Republican majority Supreme Court is likely to knock down the Voting Rights Act, which will stain the court of Chief Justice John Roberts, if it happens. Roberts’s reputation, improved by his support of ObamaCare last June, rides in the balance of what happens on this, as well as the gay marriage and expansion of the Citizens United cases that are before the Court!

It also could be argued that Scalia may be showing signs of instability at his age of 77 next month, and it will be a great day when this most right wing member of the Court in nearly a century finally retires from the Court at some point in the future!

10 comments on “Associate Justice Antonin Scalia And “Entitlement” To Voting Rights: An Outrage!

  1. Juan Domingo Peron February 28, 2013 10:08 am

    Justice Roberts reputation improved?? His vote converting a fine into a tax, as if Congress wouldn’t know how to write a tax into law, is one of the most infamous votes in the history of the SCOTUS, together with Dred Scott, Plessy, Wickard v Filburn and Everson v. Board of Education. He buckled under the pressure of the Executive and the media. The man is Chief Justice and doesn’t even know the difference between a tax and a fine, established by the Federal Government, he totally disregarded the Constitution on this issue, the man has no dignity whatsoever. At least the liberal leftist Justices were honest in their belief and supported an unlimited unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause. Which is expected from them since leftist justices don’t really much care about the Constitution.

  2. Ronald February 28, 2013 10:57 am

    Oh gosh, Juan, I totally disagree! You probably think Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia are fine Justices, when they are both total disasters! Roberts shows some promise of growth, but may destroy that with his vote on the Voting Rights case, and the other crucial cases coming up by June for decision. We can only hope for wisdom and growth on his part, and for the statesmanship of Anthony Kennedy!

    The best Justices are those who understand that interpretation of the Constitution based on modern times is the ONLY acceptable way to utilize the Constitution, and Chief Justice John Marshall believed in a broad interpretation of the Constitution and use of the elastic clause, and would be shocked at the “originalism” of the conservatives of today.

    Brandeis, Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor, and many other Justices are the ones who have made the Supreme Court an institution to be respected, while Scalia and Thomas have been embarrassments even to themselves. And notice all I listed above were appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Reagan, with Brandeis selected by Wilson, of course!

  3. Juan Domingo Peron February 28, 2013 11:22 am

    Brandeis, Warren, Brennan, Stevens, even though I might not agree on everything they at least had intellectual weight and were coherent when you read their opinions. But Blackmun, O’Connor and to some extent Kennedy are really incoherent, and their opinions are sometimes to say the least intellectually lightweight. Specially the opinions written by O’Connor. Finally I see you do not have an understanding of what originalism is and I’m not going to take up more space explaining it. All I can say is that the “elastic’ interpretation can go both ways. It can also limit rights and expand the power of government. As it has done in the past, Dred Scott and Plessy are just a few examples.

  4. Ronald February 28, 2013 11:29 am

    Well, for anyone to see Scalia and Thomas as outstanding jurists would make one wonder about sanity! LOL I notice you did not defend them against my statements. Scalia is very impressed with himself, and may be intellectual, but rarely have we seen such an arrogant, elitist egotist on the Court! He shows his clearcut prejudices without embarrassment!

    I may not be an attorney, but believe I understand what “originalism” is!

  5. Juan Domingo Peron February 28, 2013 1:21 pm

    Actually Scalia is one of the best in my opinion. As well as Thomas. So you understand originalism? How many opinions have you read? 100 , 200 over a 1000? Just curious. Did you read Madison Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787? I am sure you read the Federalist Papers I believe. How many oral arguments before the Supreme Courts have you listened to? They are very revealing and interesting: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949/ or http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205 or http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18 .

  6. Ronald February 28, 2013 3:57 pm

    I figured you would love Scalia and Thomas, not at all surprised!

    I am not an attorney, but have done a lot of reading, and have taught a Constitutional History course, one term, very broadly based, on Supreme Court cases. I do not claim to be a legal expert, but I believe two of the cases you put on here–Bush V Gore and Citizens United were totally WRONG, while Roe V Wade was proper. But I know for sure you do not agree, which makes for more debate! 🙂 LOL

  7. Juan Domingo Peron February 28, 2013 4:02 pm

    I just think one learns a lot from the oral arguments.

  8. Ronald February 28, 2013 4:16 pm

    Ok, you have a point there, and remember I look at the Court from an historical perspective as a college professor, while you come at it from an attorney perspective, and of course, we have totally different philosophical beliefs!

  9. D March 2, 2013 3:15 am

    Antonin Scalia’s attitude is apparently, “I like to mouth off so I can *f” with people.”

    He’s been at it for a while.

    This is strange behavior from a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

  10. Ronald March 2, 2013 7:22 am

    I think Justice Scalia, who is admittedly very bright, is an arrogant elitist, which usually liberals are accused of being. His behavior has been bizarre for the past few years, and one has to wonder about his mental state at times. He is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court, and undermines respect for the Court as an institution.

    And his, and Clarence Thomas’s participation in events and meetings sponsored by the Koch brothers, is a true conflict of interest, particularly with the Citizens United decision of 2010, and the resultant ability of these individuals and other wealthy right wing interests to distort our politics, although, thankfully, it flopped completely in the elections of 2012

    Scalia has reached an age where it is time for him to consider retirement, as he has worn out his welcome, and is clearly causing a rift on the Court, particularly with the three women Justices, who know fully well that he is a “male chauvinist pig” and a racial supremacist, who would have no problem with taking us back to a time when women and minorities “knew their place” in American society, and were not irritating the white male establishment!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.