Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia knows nothing about “racial entitlements.” He is using however, just another catchphrase used by racists to shield them from the rage their words will elicit...
I wandered around the internet looking for answers to the question of “racial entitlements” and stumbled across this missive from blogger Tom Degan (http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2013/03/racial-entitlements.html)...
“It could only happen in the Washington DC of 2013. At Statuary Hall inside the Capital Building, the president of the United States was dedicating a statue of Rosa Parks, the woman whose refusal to give up her seat to a white man on December 1, 1955 was the spark that ignited the modern-day civil rights movement. Meanwhile, just across town, the United States Supreme Court were debating whether or not to abolish the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the two milestone laws that are forever associated in the minds of most people with that same movement. I’m not kidding you, these two events actually occurred simultaneously. Isn’t life strange?”
Yes, Tom... life can be very strange on occasion, and it brings me back to my question... what exactly are “racial entitlements?” And why should we be concerned about them?
First, a bit of background..
According to the site HighBeam Research (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-320687950.html) the answer to whether or not racial entitlements are still pertinent is a resounding yes when it comes to the question of Section 5 (the portion of the legislation called into question by Antonin Scalia...) Congress can enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under Congress’s 15th Amendment Powers. Specifically, Section 5 halts discrimination at the outset of any voting change made in a state.
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy summed up this argument before the Supreme Court... “the challengers seek to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even though that critical section has protected constitutional guarantees against discrimination in voting where 100 years of prior civil rights laws failed. The Supreme Court got it right four years ago when it upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5 against a similar challenge.”
So what has changed in the ensuing four years? For one thing, the tea party has gained in strength... and with this new power, comes the reality that a great many tea party members seem to be racists, and strongly anti-government in their thinking (and acting). They see no problem with the elimination of Section 5, even though it would make voting problematic for many...
“Racial entitlements” is based on the concept that “present generations owe a ‘debt’ to those who have been disadvantaged by discrimination...” in other words... those individuals (read ‘black’) who have had to deal with laws intentionally barring them from stepping into a voting booth.
And let's face facts... Antonin Scalia has never been forced to deal with people belittling him for the color of his skin, nor has he received an inferior education because much of the school funding in his community was diverted to rich neighborhood schools in another community.
In truth, Antonin Scalia has no knowledge about "racial entitlements" because he's a member of the rich, privileged class and has never been forced to confront racial stereotyping that exists across this country, even today. And sadly, Scalia is also one of the justices who will move to overturn the Voting Rights Act because Alabama (that “great” bastion of racial equality) has suggested that discrimination based on the color of skin is long past, and it's time to move on...
It is a sad day indeed when a bunch of “old white, privileged men” move to dismember a piece of legislation designed to give everyone the opportunity to cast a ballot.
And contrary to Scalia’s remarks, the reality is still very unequal...
No comments:
Post a Comment