Skip to main content

View Diary: Five reasons why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is in grave danger (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Or perhaps Justice Scalia (5+ / 0-)
    JUSTICE SCALIA: Indeed, Congress must have found that the situation was even clearer and the violations even more evident than originally, because originally, the vote in the Senate, for example, was something like 79 to 18, and in the 2006 extension, it was 98 to nothing. It must have been even clearer in 2006 that these States were violating the Constitution. Do you think that's true?
    They determined that this was good legislation with a proven track record of working.

    And perhaps Chief Justice Roberts

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Massachusetts. Do you know what has the best, where African American turnout actually exceeds white turnout? Mississippi.

    ...

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Massachusetts. Third is Mississippi, where again the African American registration rate is higher than the white registration rate.

    This is the evidence as to why they think it is good legislation with this proven track record.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 12:43:03 PM PST

    •  The answer: (0+ / 0-)
      JUSTICE SCALIA: Indeed, Congress must have found that the situation was even clearer and the violations even more evident than originally, because originally, the vote in the Senate, for example, was something like 79 to 18, and in the 2006 extension, it was 98 to nothing. It must have been even clearer in 2006 that these States were violating the Constitution. Do you think that's true?
      YES, you idiot. The country as a whole understands more, or at least agrees more, that there is racial discrimination in voting access in the south and that it should be stopped.

      He didn't ask if there was more violations, which admittedly there are not. But those violations that continue are no longer acceptable by anyone, and hence almost no one in Congress opposed legislation to fight them.

      I know Scalia was trying to score points by correctly asserting that the problems were less now than they were then, but that has little to do with why we make laws about something. The only conclusion that can be drawn because more people voted for it is that more people in Congress think it's an actual problem. (Or, rather, they think the people who elect them think it's an actual problem.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site