Lol! Its only activist when its against what you believe, right?
Your opinion does not make it unconstitutional.
Umm, the racial entitlement claim wasn't a question
And his statement reveals a profound lack of understanding of how our govt works and his own belief in "limited gubmint".
It's not the job of the judicial branch to do the legislatives' heavy lifting. A future court could use that logic to say that since tax cuts are "very difficult to get them out through the normal political process", the court should invalidate any tax cut.
Activist judges ignore the constitution. It's a pretty simple distinctions mister (LOL) "libertarian".
What an outrageous lie. He did NOT say "limited gubmint" - though you FALSELY put in quotes to claim he did.
And since it is a totally lying and sneering false quote, of course justabubba and LiberalAvenger love it. The bigger and more insulting the lie, the better.:roll:
This may surprise you, but quotation marks have uses beyond the mere quoting of what someone said.
For example, I could say that I found your response to be quite...umm "enlightening"
So you were quoting yourself and then silently put it into a Supreme Court Justice's mouth to sneer at him for being igorant for using our mispronounciation - when it was your words. Got it.
It seems that when it comes to the many ways quotation marks can be used, you're just not "getting it"
It should be redesigned to stop discrimination/intimidation for everyone and not just select groups.
rubber glueNor does your opinion make it constitutional.
Well, to put it in perspective, it wasn't everyone that was being lynched when they attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It was a select group.
Well, to put it in perspective, it wasn't everyone that was being lynched when they attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. It was a select group.
It rarely happened and doesn't happen anymore. So, let's join the modern world.
It rarely happened and doesn't happen anymore. So, let's join the modern world.
That's BS. It happened a lot, but just like Holocaust deniers, there are some who are attempting to whitewash the murders that frequently happened in the South. And, as for that BS about it not happening any more, tell that to the family of James Byrd, who was lynched and dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, just a few short years ago. Now, it is true that such incidents are rare today, but Mississippi and other Southern states don't deserve the credit for that. Credit the Federal government that sent troops in to restore order, and who passed Title V. Without the Federal government intervening, lynchings would still be common in the South.
Yes, Virginia, Mississippi Burning was real. Rosewood was real. And lynchings were very real. Here is a little something for the edification and education of the deniers:
Looks like Scalia really stepped in it this time, but let's step back and examine what he said without a lot of emotion. Traditionally, Supreme Court justices have sometimes asked outrageous questions in the course of their questioning. Sometimes they play Devil's advocates. And, in order to decide cases, questions like these must sometimes be asked, in order to cover all aspects of a case, even if some of those aspects are ridiculous on their faces.
So what do you think Scalia had in mind when he asked those questions? I believe he was addressing a very political aspect of Title V, that many people actually believe, and it could be that he is putting the issue to rest, rather than intending to create an incinidary situation.
What do YOU think?
Article is here.
Especially the dead ones.It happened in the last election and itis still happening, although much of it is done indirectly or in a stealth mode.
The purpose of it is to make it harder for democrats to vote.
Actually, I agree with him on this. Although the court should not legislate, it should determine accurately that a law is or is not constitutional. What majority it passed in Congress has absolutely no bearing on constitutionality. Any law that does not apply equally to all Americans should be considered and is Unconstitutional. Whether it is voting rights, affirmative action or any other thing.
Yes, there has been a cultural of "racial" entitlement. Any law that is not applicable to all and gives greater protections or rights to any group based upon race, is racist. Any applicable based upon sex, is sexist. etc. There should be absolutely no law which gives special protections or rights to any groups based upon race, sex, etc. This includes "hate" crime laws.
I agree that there has been a culture of entitlement. This culture of entitlement consists mainly of white people who feel entitled to depress the non-white vote in America, and dilute representation in Congress of those who are not white. A case in point is right here in Texas, where Perry and his cronies attempted to take away Vietnamese American representation in Congress by carving up a district that is mainly Vietnamese, and stuffing the pieces into 3 overwhelmingly white districts, where Congressman Vo would not stand a chance in hell of being elected, and the Vietnamese Americans in Houston would no longer have a say in government. Yes, some white people felt very entitled to do that, but the Voting Rights Act said no to white entitlement, in this case. :mrgreen:
I don't see it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion. The redistricting plan was based, imo, on reducing or not allowing a growth in the number of guaranteed liberal districts. Trying to make sure there is "representatives" of a particular race is just wrong to me. One person, one vote. Rigging districts just to make sure race or a particular political philosophy is going to win is wrong. BTW, is this rep from Houston Vietnamese or American, he can't be both. And how do you know he wouldn't win which ever new district he ends up in, just because a larger number of voters are white. Apparently you presume bias and racism because someone is white, that is racism also.
Especially the dead ones.
It is not racist to remember history, and black bodies hanging from trees in the South. Seems you are attempting to turn these crimes around and make them acceptable by arguing that those who did not like the lynchings are the real racists. LOL.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?