Justice Scalia: Voting Rights Act Provision a 'Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement'

Right BillRM. It seems that if both conservatives and progressives can agree on this point, I feel less worried about our future. Thanks for your comment.

LOL, I can only wonder what label you are placing on me as other then being one hell of a strong second amendment supporter I tend to be liberal and vote democrat including both times for Obama.

Scalia will probably go down in history as one of the most damaging influences ever on our country.

There was a time I use to like him because of his personality and wit...but I consider him lower than Darth Cheney.

If he had any conscience or love of country, he would do what Pope Benedict is doing today.

Absolutely, once the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified what with its Racial Entitlement for the Negros, everything went to hell in a handbasket!

Text of part of the SC Dred Scott ruling in 1857



The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who ... form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.... The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of Aftican ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, [Dred Scott] could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.
It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded....

I've been doing the same as you, Lola -- 'up-thumbing' where there's no reason for a negative vote. But I think we need more like-minded people helping us out here.

I've been doing the same as you, Lola -- 'up-thumbing' where there's no reason for a negative vote. But I think we need more like-minded people helping us out here.

On this thread at least it seem that there is a 100 percent agreement concerning Scalia comment so in relationship to this thread there are so far no unlike-minded people.