Comments (25) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   braindead08 said, 3 months ago

   Time for Scalia to be the star at another Republican fund raiser.
2. 

   lonecat said, 3 months ago

   What could “racial entitlement to vote” possibly mean? Everyone who is an adult citizen (and not a felon?) is entitled to vote. The problem is that historically (and perhaps still today) certain groups were denied the right to vote, a right to which they were entitled. Would someone please explain to me what “racial entitlement to vote” means?
3. 

   Rickapolis said, 3 months ago

   Can’t we get Scalia to emulate the Pope and resign? One of our GREATEST embarrassments. A national disgrace.
4. 

   Machado said, 3 months ago

   @lonecat

   The term used by Scalia ( I find it perplexing too) is referring to continued punishment from the Federal Government (oversight) in perpetuity on certain States/regions/counties (but not other regions) that committed acts of discrimination in the past, but (as claimed in case currently argued before the supremes) current evidence doesn’t support continued Federal oversight or “punishment” , it has nothing to do with ‘riding at the back of the bus’ or taking away any rights to vote as depicted by our esteemed cartoonist of the left to inflame old passions…. .
5. 

   dtroutma said, 3 months ago

   Antonin still can’t hold a candle to his lackey, “Clarence the Silent”. Specter made that confirmation process a lie and a circus, and Thomas has done nothing to dispel the fact that he’s probably the worst court appointment in history, either SCOTUS, or the lower courts.
6. 

   lonecat said, 3 months ago

   @Machado

   In perpetuity? Really? And is federal oversight punishment? Really? And didn’t Congress consider the evidence and come to an overwhelming conclusion that the law was still needed? And how does this cartoon draw any link to “riding at the back of the bus”?
7. 

   Machado said, 3 months ago

   @lonecat

   Yeah!, Really! but I’m REALLY not going to argue this complicated issue with you, especially in a ’Cartoon’s blog!!! , Go and double check your facts, and you obviously don’t keep up with cartoons depicted around here, go back and check Morin, liberal cartoonist have been distorting the facts aboutthis case around here since Scalia issued that statement…
8. 

   charliekane said, 3 months ago

   From Lyle Denniston, of the National Constitutional Center:

   . . .

   Justice Scalia’s use of the phrase “racial entitlements” was his assessment of the provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that requires some state and local governments to get permission in Washington before they may put into effect any new election law or procedure. That duty was imposed on them by Congress, starting nearly a half-century ago, because those governments had persisted in denying the right to vote to minorities, and no other method seemed to work to put a stop to that.

   From Justice Scalia’s perspective, that requirement is no longer needed, because he is persuaded that the condition that led to its passage no longer prevails, in the South or anywhere else in the country. But does it advance an agenda to strike down that law to suggest that the only reason Congress has repeatedly re-enacted it, with rising majorities, is that it was simply a politically popular law that remains intact only because it would be too risky to vote against it?

   There may well be a difference, and a truly profound one, between passing an ordinary piece of legislation–say, adopting an increase in the highway speed limit because roads are better–and enacting a statute that seeks to enforce a constitutional right. The former is a matter of convenience, the latter may well be a matter of protecting human dignity. As long as a right remains in the Constitution (and Congress has never repealed a constitutional right), there may well be an abiding right to keep enforcing it.

   A constitutional amendment passed with the noblest of motives may well become a nullity if its enforcement lapses. In fact, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were rendered almost completely useless in the decades after the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the “black codes” emerged amid waves of blatant racial hatred. In fact, even the courts joined in a process of turning those amendments into mere temporary “entitlements” that could be, in practice, withdrawn.

   With a historical record like that, it may well be no surprise at all that Congress is unwilling to let a civil rights law be undone.
9. 

   MurphyHerself said, 3 months ago

   Just wondering; what happens when the white man is the minority?
10. 

    Machado said, 3 months ago

    ^ very good write-up..like I said, a complicated issue dealing with Civil rights vs State Rights, an issue that should be settled by the Supreme court..

    But ‘toons like Mr Wuerker’s here are just trying to get attention by distorting the facts…..
    ..
11. 

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 3 months ago

    @lonecat

    The phrase “racial entitlement to vote” is crypto racist speak for inferiors given the right they don’t deserve.
12. 

    charliekane said, 3 months ago

    @Machado

    I took the article as a polite way of saying that Scalia is an idiot.
13. 

    Ms. Ima said, 3 months ago

    So who’s fault was it people had to ‘wait’ 3 hours to vote in Florida? Surely not a supreme court justice.
14. 

    Ms. Ima said, 3 months ago

    Ho ho ho, physical abuse is SO funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15. 

    Machado said, 3 months ago

    @charliekane

    well, according to the panel I heard over at PBS discussing this issue in depth, municipalities right now can and have successfully applied to remove themselves from Federal oversight solely based on favorable history collected after the initial enactment of the Voters Act, so by his own actions, the Federal government (and congress) is not supporting this article’s logic as it provides a mechanism to end oversight regardless of the constitutional issue raised by this article..
16. Load the rest of the comments (10).