Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Yes, Justice Scalia: Section 5 Is a Racial Entitlement. Even DOJ Says So

March 13th, 2013 - 6:37 am

Truth and revolution can appear suddenly, and darken the brightest of times.

Consider yesterday’s Department of Justice inspector general’s report documenting the rancid racialist attitudes of the Voting Section staff. (See: “Inspector General Report of Racialist Dysfunction Inside DOJ.”)

The Justice Department should hope that Justice Antonin Scalia — or his clerks — don’t catch wind of the IG report before Shelby v. Holder is decided. If he or they do, they will find a particularly interesting discussion regarding what Justice Scalia called “racial entitlements” in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

The left has been apoplectic about Scalia’s observation. But yesterday’s DOJ inspector general’s report makes plain: many staff inside the Justice Department define Section 5 exactly as Scalia does: as a “racial entitlement.”

In the report, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez — a possible Obama nominee to head the Department of Labor — makes clear that he doesn’t think Section 5 should ever be used to protect a white minority in covered jurisdictions.

Perez feels it should only be used to prop up the political position of “people of color.” If the victims of discrimination happen to be white, too bad — they are not protected.

Put aside for a moment that this is precisely the sort of attitude and exactly the type of policy about which I testified under oath in 2010. Even some wayward conservatives joined the howls on the Left when I exposed this deplorable law-enforcement philosophy. Thanks to Tom Perez’s unapologetic leftist candor, we now know with absolute clarity the truth about the current DOJ — and the truth is ugly.

From the report (pp. 90-91):

Perez also told the OIG that he believed interpreting the retrogressive-effect prong of the analysis to cover White citizens would be inconsistent with the history of and intent behind Section 5, which he stated was enacted to remedy the specific problem of discrimination against racial minorities. In his February 2011 letter, Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term “minority” to mean not numerical minority, but rather “an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.”

Pay close attention to Perez’s use of “disadvantaged group.” This qualifier is familiar language to critical-race theorists. It evidences a view that even a small white minority is never worthy of protection, even if discriminated against, because ultimately whites are members of a privileged group. Also, people of color are always part of a “disadvantaged group.”

Privilege and disadvantage are not prerequisites to equal protection of the law.

Yet DOJ Voting Section lawyers employed Perez’s logic to argue against helping white victims of discrimination in Macon, Mississippi, saying:

Until blacks were socio-economically equal to whites in Mississippi (read: statistically) then whites should not be protected under the Voting Rights Act.

What should trouble the justices on the Supreme Court deciding Shelby is that Scalia’s fears reflect the plain enforcement policy of the Justice Department unit which enforces Section 5. To Tom Perez, it is axiomatic that Section 5 is a racial entitlement only to people of color. The protections of the law, to him, are not for whites. Section 5 is only to be used to preserve the political power of blacks, Hispanic, and native Americans.

If that isn’t a racial entitlement, I don’t know what is.

Perez employs the doublespeak and prevarication for which he has become famous: he dishonestly infers that the Supreme Court has addressed and decided the matter. Perez writes that the Supreme Court “has consistently recognized that Section 5 was enacted to deal with a particular historical problem of racial discrimination against minorities.” (Pages 90-91 of the report).

Of course the Supreme Court has said Section 5 protects national racial minorities, as it did in 1966 when it first upheld Section 5. But what Perez fails to note is that the question of whether Section 5 protects all Americans, including whites, has never been before the Court.

Perez would have the uninformed reader believe otherwise.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
It's just plain racism. Those with power are denying equal treatment under the law to people based on their skin color.

The whole civil rights division of the DOJ is filled with racists, masquerading as "anti-racists." Kind of like anti-semites masquerading as human rights advocates with regards to Israel.

Time to organize the white European tribe for our own protection. We need are own advocacy groups, watchdogs, lawfare, etc. We should demand our own studies departments in the universities as well. That goes for men too.


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I hear ya, sif.

Why, one day we might have to go into federal court to stop our schools from teaching students to hate whites and to overthrow the government.

Nah, never mind...that would never happen.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/12/federal-judge-arizona-can-ban-classes-promoting-racial-resentment-against-whites/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I remember reading that even the SCOTUS has ruled that international laws trump our own..."

Certainly there are SCOTUS justices (Breyer ? Ginsburg? I'd guess Obama appointees, Sotomayor and Kagan...) who seem to think that what has gone down legally in Europe in terms of "social justice" is a far more enlightened approach than our antiquated old Constitution.

Ginsburg has a hard time imagining a "just" government that doesn't provide for its citizens from birth to death, education, medical care, even, she has argued, a right to transportation...Obama's ideal citizen "Julia" writ large, her government supporting every aspect of her life from cradle to grave.

The UN is interested in subjecting US law to its own criminal court at the Hague. And Obama surrogates, notably legal advisor Harold Koh, are deeply into what Andrew McCarthy calls "transnationalism" to describe this trend to some kind of standardized, worldwide governance.

I always wonder exactly which paragon of liberty out there (sarcasm alert) is the United States supposed to replace itself with ?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (26)
All Comments   (26)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
A few years ago, my niece was an intern at Justice, working in a section which was focused on rooting out "hidden" and "secret" racism in our society. I was surprised - I had never heard of this section before. I would like to hear what J. Christian might have to say about this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Perez noted that the Division has always understood the term “minority” to mean not numerical minority, but rather “an identifiable and specially disadvantaged group.”"
- - -

But for purposes of the VRA, the "disadvantage" must affect the right and ability to vote. There are many "disadvantages" that we can suffer, but the VRA only takes notice of a certain limited few that are set out in the Act itself.

I am unable to dunk basketballs - too short - and so I am disadvantaged in scoring baskets in basketball, but no one would seriously suggest that I and my just-as-short friends ought to be given special voting and representational consideration in national elections.

So, if any discrete group of people - discrete by dint of some set of characteristics recognized within the VRA - if any such discrete group of people suffers some harm or damage or threat to their ability to vote, and the harm arises specifically because of their membership in the discrete group, then they have recourse to the VRA.

When whites are a numerical minority in an electorate, and non-whites use their numerical superiority to interfere with the white's already-minimal voting power, the VRA squarely applies. Perez's interpretation of "disadvantaged" is incorrect, and coincidentally errs in a manner that consistently over-empowers his own groups.

Perez is likely violating the VRA through his use of governmental power to misapply a long-settled rule of law.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Jumping and dunking a basketball is not a constitutional protectd right! :)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Along the same lines, my favorite term that leftist's toss out from time to time is "protected class." Actually, I wouldn't mind being assigned to thast group, does anyone know how I go about applying?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's just plain racism. Those with power are denying equal treatment under the law to people based on their skin color.

The whole civil rights division of the DOJ is filled with racists, masquerading as "anti-racists." Kind of like anti-semites masquerading as human rights advocates with regards to Israel.

Time to organize the white European tribe for our own protection. We need are own advocacy groups, watchdogs, lawfare, etc. We should demand our own studies departments in the universities as well. That goes for men too.


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
and don't forget White History Month!
Detailing the slaughter of white people at the hands of the Amerindian tribes (I refuse to call them "native Americans", anyone born in the Americas is a native American by definition), Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and every other race on the planet.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm still not clear on what Justice Scalia meant by "racial entitlement". Is voting a racial entitlement? We need to ensure that ALL American citizens have the right and means to vote, and to have their vote counted, regardless of race. I would hope that there are efforts underway, which include positive verification of voter identity and equal access to polls (i.e. no long wait times, ample access to polls). One person, one vote. Or am I missing something here?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The racial entitlement part is that the VRA is only enforced against whites, never blacks, even when a black majority is clearly discriminating against a white minority. It is similar to affirmative action, where you have discrimination for blacks and hispanics, and against asians, jews, and whites.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, your missing the part where the Left ignores the Constitution's Fifth Amendment due process requirement in order to perpetuate a "racial entitlement".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Entitlement? Equal Rights Protection?

With all due respect Mr. Adams, I would be interested in 'anybody' citing any constitutional provisions or statutory laws of racial entitlement. I think most are familiar with discrimination and equal rights consititional protections but where did Scalia come up with “racial entitlements”? Is not the Voting Righhts Act about equal rights protection 'framed' around a particular class of citizens, thus, section 2 and section 5 to reenforce the 15th amendment?

I certainly agree that there should have been federal charges made and prosecution attempted on the merits of 15th Amendment but this perifial racial charged language brought forth by Scalia doesen't make any sense to me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When you have laws like the VRA, and affirmative action, that exclusively benefit blacks, never whites, regardless of circumstance, that looks like a racial entitlement to me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Through the VRA, certain protected minorities are given heightened protections and abilities related to voting. The mechanism of this empowerment involves taking normal functions of local government away from local governments - making those governments request permission from centralized federal bureaucrats in order to exercise their normal supervisory and organizational roles concerning elections.

Thus, the "entitlement" here is based on the usurpation from a county or city or state of some of its powers - powers held without challenge by every other similar entity - powers granted from within our federal Constitution - by the federal government.

THAT'S what Scalia means - not "we need to stop giving them this extra help", but instead "we need to stop seizing power that is more properly exercised by the {state/city/county}."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Holy cow!!! When a consitutionally protected right is being denied and or infringed upon by or too any citizen class, the federal government has the consitutional right (mandate) to provide and equitable remedy either by permenant legislation or sunset legislation.

I think I'll wait and let Scalia wiggle through the legal definitions and concepts of right vs. entitlement since he is on record over the years having dealt with both. -- none of which has anything to do with "seizing power" by the federal government over a states 10th amendement authorities. Consitutional 'voting rights' is a federal jurisdiction and the 'voting process' is a states rights juridiction.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The issue that interests me is a tangental one to this central issue of who the Voting Rights Act applies to: What happens when a racial minority (by their definition) is the majority in say a Congressional District, and the group that gets screwed is "also" a racial "minority"? This is currently happening in South Central Los Angeles, where the population is largely Hispanic, but the Congressional Districts are mostly controlled by the Blacks through gerrymandering. Last I heard, there was a lawsuit going forward, with Black community leaders (up to Maxine Waters) bitterly attacking the application of the Voting Rights Act to this issue. Though they wouldn't say it, the clear implication was that the Voting Rights Act was written not to protect everyone, and not even to protect disadvantaged minorities...it was written to protect Blacks, specifically and exclusively.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Minorities like asians and jews had been thrown under the black reverse discrimination bus by the dems for a long time,but now you are telling me that hispanics are being sacrificed too.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There are all these conflicting messages going out. Our public school sent home a letter saying they are preparing the kids to become "global citizens." The churches are global. The corporations are becoming global. The top universities are catering to students from all over the world. I remember reading that even the SCOTUS has ruled that international laws trump our own, basically ranking themselves below the international community. I'm not sure why they would do that to themselves, but they don't appear to be making the best decisions.

There are almost a billion people living in Africa. There are billions of people living in Asia. There are around three quarters of a billion people living in Mexico, Central, and South America. Our country only has around 315 million people. I don't know how any of these large groups can be considered a minority at the is point. It would be laughable if this kind of stuff wasn't going on in all seriousness.

How many U.S. companies have more Asian employees than American? The company my dad worked at for years moved to Mexico. The black and caucasian workers were replaced by Mexicans...but that doesn't matter, right?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I hear ya, sif.

Why, one day we might have to go into federal court to stop our schools from teaching students to hate whites and to overthrow the government.

Nah, never mind...that would never happen.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/12/federal-judge-arizona-can-ban-classes-promoting-racial-resentment-against-whites/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This needs to spread like wildfire amongst GOP controlled states. Defund the haters, political action centers of people that hate you, spewing of hatred, intellectualizing of hatred, and teaching hatred to the next generation in perpetuity. Defund the studies departments, now. We shouldnt be paying people big money to teach people to hate white Anglo Europeans, Christians and men.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I remember reading that even the SCOTUS has ruled that international laws trump our own..."

Certainly there are SCOTUS justices (Breyer ? Ginsburg? I'd guess Obama appointees, Sotomayor and Kagan...) who seem to think that what has gone down legally in Europe in terms of "social justice" is a far more enlightened approach than our antiquated old Constitution.

Ginsburg has a hard time imagining a "just" government that doesn't provide for its citizens from birth to death, education, medical care, even, she has argued, a right to transportation...Obama's ideal citizen "Julia" writ large, her government supporting every aspect of her life from cradle to grave.

The UN is interested in subjecting US law to its own criminal court at the Hague. And Obama surrogates, notably legal advisor Harold Koh, are deeply into what Andrew McCarthy calls "transnationalism" to describe this trend to some kind of standardized, worldwide governance.

I always wonder exactly which paragon of liberty out there (sarcasm alert) is the United States supposed to replace itself with ?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's good to have confirmed what has been a longstanding corruption of at the department of (in)justice.

And have the ridiculous assumption that "racism" only runs white on black (therefore the other way around/other directions won't be enforced) shot full of some well needed holes.

Apparently Eric Holder and his merry band of "racialist" appointees are sticking around, so reversing these trends won't happen easily. (Isn't there something in the DOJ hiring guidelines that disallows these kinds of longstanding "racial preferences" in hiring practices ?)

They've already gotten away with murder (cf Fast & Furious) & brought the integrity of Lady Justice down some notches. I'm not holding my breath that the current exposé will make much of a difference.

Still, any light is a welcome disinfectant.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When "Redistribution" Becomes "Retribution"

In reading the OIG report (a bit disappointing in parts), it is clear that the leftists in their usual disguise, masks and misdirection plays, love to play semantic games with a clear intent at "payback".

"It's our turn" is much more important a phrase to them then "it's our country too".

They are not looking for the car to be running in race neutral, they are looking for a way to gun it in reverse.

Word parsing and flowery rhetoric aside, the clear aim is to allow a little "payback" to go unpunished. The excuse is "there aren't enough funds to chase discrimination cases that don't fit the narrative".

Having the TSA undiaper grandma in a wheelchair, taxing "millionaires and billionaires", taking away guns from everyone BUT gangbangers, not enforcing laws against states who screw the military out of voting, but suing states that protect their borders...is "punishing the ENEMY", as Obama said on Spanish radio.

Elections have consequences. I agree. And I would swear to it on an unsigned draft of our Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All