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

Perez then claims that protecting whites with the Voting Rights Act “would be infeasible as a practical matter, noting that ‘many voting changes … will almost always have some racial effect in some direction.’”

This too is false.

There is a way to accomplish the goal of protecting all Americans with the Voting Rights Act, particularly in jurisdictions like Noxubee County, Mississippi, where a federal court has already found that whites were the victim of voting discrimination. Unfortunately, it will have to wait; the next Republican administration needs to implement these already drafted Section 5 regulations to protect all Americans, assuming Section 5 even exists in 2017.

If Perez is right, and Section 5 really is a racial entitlement to be enjoyed only by “people of color,” perhaps it is time for it to go. In a country becoming increasingly racially diverse, where experience shows that vile race discriminators are no longer confined to only “privileged” whites, a law that only protects some Americans will grow obsolete, then go rancid.

Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court should strike down Section 5 while it is merely obsolete. Our country shouldn’t have to endure Perez’s divisive legal theories in a future and more diverse age when they will ripen into an unwelcome rot.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

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