Thursday, February 28, 2013

Quote: Oh, Hell, Who Needs a Voting Rights Act?

Antonin Scalia in attack mode.

“And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same ... 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 ... [T]his is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress ... Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

 --Far right-wing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (here) commenting on the Voting Rights Act, which has overwhelming support in the House and Senate, where support is unanimous (name anything else that Congress is unanimous about).



  1. What kind of judicial review can be taken against him?
    Alise Stewart

  2. Alice: If anything could have been done about this man's unethical behavior, it would have happened a long time and many incidents ago. He's had more conflicts of interest without recusing himself, I suspect, than any modern Supreme Court Justice.

  3. I'm still waiting for him to explain (1) what parts of the Act are "racial entitlement", and (2) why he considers voting to be an "entitlement" rather than a right.