Scalia Calls Section 5 of Voting Rights Act a Racial Entitlement

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Talk about your activist court if the ruling comes down against this. Given all the voter suppression efforts recently, I can't fathom how the SC could invalidate this. Thinking of sending Scalia some white robes to wear in court. Also a copy of the 15th amendment.



    Link
     
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
    So only some states have to do this and not others? Or am I not reading this correctly?
     
  3. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    Frankly, I think it should apply to all states but it applies to those that have had racial discrimination in their voting laws in the past. All one needs to do is look at voter suppression efforts in the past election to see we are far from not needing this law.
     
  4. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #4
    Yeah I think they should be applied nationwide or not at all. I don't think the federal government should be picking and choosing laws to apply to certain states. If a law must be state specific, let the state ratify it.
     
  5. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #5
    I agree. Picking certain states and forcing certain laws on only those states is discrimination. It's also unfair, unjust and unequal. Federal laws transcend state laws. So if specificity is required, it should be a state law. The only problem is that with this particular issue, I'm sure there is opposition in those states about passing a state law that requires any changes regarding voting procedures to be cleared with a third party. And there may not be a majority that agrees with this for various reasons.
     
  6. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6

    If the state didn't have laws designed to suppress minority voters, they wouldn't be in the position to have the federal govt. having to approve any changes to voting laws.


    Link
     
  7. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #7
    Then apply it to all states, not just a few.
     
  8. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #8
    A couple days old but still good to discuss.

    Like "white privilege" during most of the history of this country hasn't been racial entitlement. :rolleyes:

    Scalia, the self-serving, poor excuse of a human being needs to be booted off the bench. How can he think he's any better than the people he's supposed to serve?
     
  9. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #9
    Is it even constitutional to only apply a law to some states? I doubt it. This law needs to stay but apply to all states.
     
  10. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #10
    I think technically the VRA DOES apply to all states equally. Just like we are all subject to federal laws on insider trading - but not everybody gets punished for insider trading. In other words, if you meet the criteria of insider trading, which everybody can be considered for if there's reasonable suspicion, then you face the potential for punishment of insider trading. Similarly, every jurisdiction of the US - state, counties, even townships - are subject to the coverage formula detailed in Section 4 of the VRA. If a jurrisdiction is evaluated against that formula and found to be in violation of the VRA, they then become subject to Section 5. So, just like insider trading laws apply to all of us but only some are punished for it, VRA applies to all jurrisdictions but only some are sanctioned by it.

    Saying that every jurrisdiction must get pre-approval due to voting rights violations is like saying every mutual fund and 401k holder must spend time in jail for insider trading.

    Read below for how the VRA gets applied, and its history:
    http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/about.php
     

Share This Page