Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

Debate Over Voting Rights Act Shows Resentment Still Exists

Debate Over Voting Rights Act Shows Resentment Still Exists

If you want to stare into the ugly face of racial resentment, take a good look at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. His frank, if stunningly injudicious, remarks about a key portion of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) laid bare the bitterness that so many hyper-conservatives still harbor toward black progress.

This past week, during oral arguments about a challenge to the law — widely considered the crowning achievement of the civil rights movement — Scalia dismissed a critical part of the law as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Given that the VRA was passed to ensure that black Americans had the right to vote — after white segregationists had showed they were willing to beat, jail and kill activists to block the black ballot — it was a chilling remark.

I’m so glad Scalia, who has long since given up the charade of a circumspect judicial temperament, said exactly what was on his mind. It saves me the trouble of having to persuade you that many critics of the VRA are mossbacks who still resent the political transformation unleashed by the power of the black vote.

Other skeptics on the high court managed more subtle criticisms, largely built around the notion that much has changed in the decades since a young John Lewis was beaten bloody on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 48 years ago this week. It’s a very seductive argument.

I know because I was very nearly seduced by it myself. In 2005, civil rights activists were gearing up to lobby Congress to once again renew the VRA, set to expire in 2006. As I considered their arguments, I looked around at a political landscape that Martin Luther King Jr. would not have recognized.

With black men and women serving in major political posts (appointed and elected), including as U.S. Secretary of State, I was about to concede to the forces who argued that the Voting Rights Act was no longer necessary. And I was prepared to disagree with the esteemed Lewis — who has now been a distinguished member of Congress for more than a quarter-century — on the point.

But the Georgia General Assembly dragged me back to the reality of the modern-day politics of racial exclusion. In 2005, its Republican members pushed through an odious piece of legislation requiring state-sanctioned photo IDs, such as a driver’s license, for voting. It became one of the first states to do so.

  • Don’t keep the Scalia over your eyes. Demand the right for all to vote fairly. And, Antonin?

    You’re right, they *ARE* entitled to vote–and we’ll make sure that stays the case, you bigoted ass.

    • nobsartist

      Scalia should be tarred and feathered for his ignorant comments.


    • idamag

      We should have universal voting laws to protect people in those backward states that are still smarting over the VRA.

  • MVH1

    Thank goodness for Cynthia Tucker. It’s hard to believe Scalia thinks this way and amazing he would say it. There is no way to take it as anything other than what she says. I thought we were done with this. For anyone who went through the Civil Rights movement those many years ago, most of us of that generation have come to be very grateful for the steps forward for our black friends and recognize there’s much that can’t be legislated that’s still holding us back as a decent people. I wish Scalia would retire. It’s hard to perceive him as much other than verging on being an evil man.

    • nobsartist

      roberts and the other political hacks like thomas should join him. But after they are tarred and feathered.

      It would be nice if the awol coke head that has been hiding since malaysia found him guilty of war crimes, would crawl out from under the rock he is hiding under so that we AMERICANS can tar and feather that felon also.

      What the supreme joke is, is an example of the nuts running the insane asylum.

      • lana ward

        The conservative Justices are trying to save America. The communist Justices are turning us into Cuba!!!

        • BDC_57

          Quit your lying bitch.

          • lana ward

            Go bite yourself, you uninformed wit

          • MVH1

            Great way to get someone to look at your point of view, Lana, and even more to get them to agree with you. Hahahahaha Honestly, aren’t you a grown up? You should know better than coming on so strong with hate and hostility and calling everybody in sight some ugly name.

          • lana ward

            Omuslim can’t accomplish what he wants because he’s not a dictator. He can’t make others do what he wants because he’s not a dictator. He can’t make others “do the right thing “. Why would he be making this point?–He is pre-selling a move he hopes and intends to make. Heil Hitler!!!!!

        • Hungry_Cowboy

          Putz !!!

        • Lana, would you care to offer evidence of communism in the Supreme Court, or how some Justices is turning the USA into Cuba?

        • Germansmith

          please Lana…Come down
          SCOTUS judges are knowledgeble human being trying to protect the constitution the best they know how.
          Some have their tendencies, just as every human does.

        • RobertCHastings

          I feel I need tomake the same point with you that I seem to be making on a daily basis. What are your sources? Which Justices are communists, and which conservative justices are trying to save America – which America? Check your sources. My point is that, within two days I am absolutely positive that I could find someone who would absolutely swear that he has had unnatural sex with you, except that I wuld not find this on a reputable, verifiable source. And, of course, you could find the same about me, were you to garner your usual data from your usual sources. Were you to actually look at reputable sources, I am sure the support and validation you get for your ideas would vanish. Please do not interpret this to mean that I am trying to degrade or insult you, merely that I am trying to get you to be more discerning in your sources.

      • Germansmith

        That is why our Founders created the Supreme Court to be an appoinment for life, not elected
        The MOB of either the right OR left wing nuts are always at odds with their determinations. SCOTUS is not always right but they protect our country from radically swing directions as politicals whims and demagogue politicians try to push their fashionable agendas on a basically ignorant populace.

        I call this Democracy with a safety net…

    • rpg1408

      I agree. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and the rest of the “Gang of Five” on the current Supreme (Extreme) Court , with their votes on Citizens United and now,potentially, on Voting Rights , are doing irreparable damage to our Democracy.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Plus, how does a justice who is completely mute, be a competent justice? How do we know he’s not also deaf? Maybe his clerks are writing all his opinions. If he does not speak, how do we really know? Unfortunately, he is not that old and we are stuck with him. One of the worst decisions by Bush ’41. I think Clarence knows he was was a token pick. He sure is acting like an embittered guy, who is just not comfortable with who he is. Unlike Sonia. Keep after old Tony, girl!

      • MVH1

        I think a good argument could be made that he does suffer a kind of deafness. He speaks, believe me, when he gets out and about, he speaks and it’s nothing you want to hear from a Supreme Court Justice.

    • lana ward

      Cynthia Tucker should be shot for treason!!!

      • jimlscotland

        Some more of this Lana please. Keep going your doing great!! You talked above about the communists and Cuba, but we need just one more to make our day

        • lana ward

          Omuslim plans on being a dictator. Heil Hitler!!!!

          • MVH1

            Aha, the Hitler reference. Now we never have to take anything you ever say again seriously. Civilized people who want the country to move forward and see nothing wrong with give and take in working out a deal to make things work have long ago agreed anyone throwing accusations of communism and Hitlerism and Nazism, among other pejorative accusations, have no place in a civilized society. You ought to be ashamed of yourself but you belong to the nut wing of your group and shame is something you don’t understand nor comprehend.

      • You evil bitch! Cynthia Tucker should press charges against your insane a**hole for threatening her life. If I were her, I would. You continue to show how angry, racist, evil, malicious, and violent you are by your outrageous and vitriolic language. You are a prime example of an extreme right-wing Republican, someone like Scalia. Why don’t you go and do to yourself what you are hoping happens to Ms. Tucker?

        • I’ve come to think that Lana Wood may not be just one person – it may be a pseudonym for several people (maybe a bunch of college kids) who are using the National Memo just to rile people up and have what they think is some fun. As I suggested the other day, given that Lana Ward’s comments are never substantive, virtually only inflammatory nonsense, my suggestion was to not respond and hope that in time, whomever, is posting as Lana Ward will go away.

          • I’ve said that all along. I even posted that comment here before. Lana Ward is a pseudonym. It is actually the Tea Party who want to incite a rise in Progressive and Independent thinkers and supporters. If they want to play that game, I’ll play it with them. They are only making themselves look even stupider and out of touch with reality.

          • Problem is that when posters start responding to Lana’s nonsense of nothing but inflammatory posts, it simply wastes time and detracts from being able to read sensible posts from those who are reallly wanting to address the issues and sensible responses to them. I don’t see the National Memo as a place to play games; which I think Lana’s intention is – Lana’s trying to turn the National Memo into a farce.

        • lana ward

          Cynthia Tucker should be shot for treason!!

    • The only way the Supreme Court could be an impartial interpreter of the Constitution is if its members were not nominated and confirmed by humans. As it is, our Justices very often reflect the ideological convictions of those who nominated them, which shifts along with the pendulum of our political convictions and circumstances.
      What Scalia said is a sad reflection on our society, and something every human being in the civilized world should reject.

      • MVH1

        I agree with everything you’ve said so well.

    • Let’s give the guys a break. Maybe he was talking about people that look like him when he talked about the “perpetuation of racial entitlement”. He sure looks like he wants to perpetuate his. 🙂

  • nobsartist

    It is difficult to imagine our “Supreme Court” packed with low i.q. partisan hacks but thats what we have here.

    It is time to amend the Constitution and make the political system that has existed since our government was overthrown on 11.22.1963, ILLEGAL.

    • whodatbob


    • Since JFK’s assassination?? What happened with respect to our political system that you consider illegal?

  • TheSkalawag929

    It a shame that Justice Scalia has such a short memory. It wasn’t so long ago that his people, Italians, were looked down upon and discriminated against. Although it was easier for them to blend in, being white, they still in a lot of cases would change their names and lie about their family’s place of origin so that they could fit in.
    It is so sad that when some are accepted they become less accepting.

  • RobertCHastings

    Chapter f of the VRA requires “preclearance” from the Justice Department before any of the targeted areas with previous issues can change anything about their voting laws or procedures. It is apparent that this provision is still needed; but, one of the opponents presented and arguement before the Supreme Court asserting that, as Scalia claims, the time for this act is long passed and at least Section 5 shuld be repealed. I disagree, and feel, in light of what has been going on for the past few years to disenfranchise monority voters around the country, that this provision should be expanded to include the entire country. The opponents are morally right in that to single out only certain jurisdictions is unfair. To make it fair, ALL jurisdictions should be included.

    • db1db2d

      Great idea RobertC… That is the only appropriate response to the “redneck devolution” appearing in Pennsylvania and other northern states, and quite possibly the last, best defense against the 1%er takeover of state governments via the A.L.E.C.-directed cabal, which is very successfully perverting democracy at that level. When legislators are handed ALEC templates for legislation and feel they need to “call a rich person” to tell them how to vote on every issue, we are well and truly —— as a nation.

      It is so completely sad that the rednecks will only figure out what is happening when they are in the same set of chains with all the other scapegoats of the 1%…. black, brown, LGBT, elderly, sick. Only then will they realize that their idiotic bigotry was not such a good idea…maybe…. They are, after all, not particularly discerning individuals. The only bright point in this is that they consist of only 45% of the voting public at the moment.

      While they view the scapegoats as a poorly-defined threat to God only knows what they consider their “freedoms” to be (freedom to be stupid, ill-informed, poor and nasty?), as a thinking old white businessman, I am clear that the “scapegoats” represent the only possible peaceful force working against this nation becoming a completely Corporate-Owned Fascist Rentier Imperialist Nation. Disagree on the “Imperialist” part? Of the 196 sovereign nations on the planet, we have troops stationed in 150 (76%) of them. Germany invaded 11 or 12, depending on what source you use.

      Upon reflection, it may well already be too late, as all three branches of our government are pretty-thoroughly OWNED and OPERATED as a corporate subsidiary of the banks, Wall Street and a number of multi-national corporations. Our other last, best hope may well be a few enlightened General Staff officers in our military who recognize (and resent) that they are nothing more than “power tools” for Monsanto, GE, Halliburton, Exxon, BofA, Goldman Sachs, et al… and that NOTHING our military has done in the last 12 years has anything to do with defending the population of the USA from the largely imaginary and overblown BoogieMan… Where no “threats” exist, the Corporate Government creates them…. the great ongoing soap-opera of division, diversion and distraction….

      If they reflect upon the Oath they took, they may come to realize that the only appropriate action is to (legally) indefinitely detain around 1,000 people in D.C. and NYC and start over with a new Constitution that is not so “user-friendly” to fraud and conflict of interest.

  • whodatbob

    Hold the bashing of Scalia until the case is settled. For now respect the fact that he was not politically correct. Scalia stated in plain English why the bigots are enacting all the voter restriction laws. Also, the reason Section 5 must apply to all states. My Midwestern state has enacted a voter ID law, w are not covered by Section 5. Bigotry is everywhere.

    • Hold whatever you want Bob,but I will continue to call him out for what he is.He showed his colors with Citizens United if not before.Give no quarter to fascists.

  • whodatbob

    Some of the old Conservitive Justices needto step down, to be replaced with Liberals.

    • That would be great, but to me, what’s really needed is a change to the Constitution creating term limits for Supreme Court judges. I doubt seriously that our forefathers ever envisioned that the Court would become such a partisan place when they created it with lifetime appointments for judges; I’m sure they envisiond that judges would determine the merits of cases purely on constitutional considerations – when that’s clearly not happening. And, it’s absurd to me, to think that today’s often very partisan presidents, being it from either party, should have the right to inflict upon the country, possibly for decades, partisan Court judgments (such as the very partisan 2000 decision to prevent a Florida recount that could have made Al Gore president, or to put into law something as absurd as Citizens United) by appointing what they know are very partisan leaning judges who can serve for a lifetime.

      • idamag

        When the three branches of government were formed, it was to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. Thanks to a weak other branch, the supreme court is legislating from the bench. Where is the outrage in congress?

      • Germansmith

        The framers intended that SCOTUS would NOT be affected by the political whims of society.They expected, in most cases SCOTUS would be at odds with POTUS and/or Congress. SCOTUS are the guardians of the Constitution.

        That is why you want an appointment for life and NOT elections for Supreme Court Judge.

        After all the political divide we have in this country was created by “elected officials”

        The Civil Rights Act is racial preference…is it necessary? Probably yes. Is it also necessary to evaluate the need for once in a while…also yes.

        • Sorry, but your comment doesn’t hold water. You can’t have SCOTUS not affected by political whims when you’ve allowed the judges to be appointed by very partisan presidents and approved by a very partisan congress. SCOTUS’ decisions like the 2000 nonsense to not allow the election to be decided by a recount in Florida that could well have given the election to Gore, a Democrat, when the court had a Republican bias; and the nonsense decision on Citizens United, both point quite clearly that SCOTUS very often doesn’t base it’s decision on pure assessments of the Constitution, but more often than not on POLITICAL BIAS!!!!

          • Germansmith

            Presidents come and go, their appointed judges remains behind. That is what keep our fickle democracy from drastic swings.

            Human beings are easily influence by trends. Our country’s history indicates we swing from one extreme to the other. SCOTUS is an stabilizing influence.

            Scalia is very much a conservative, but just because he has his views and those may be offensive to some minorities or to the democrats that depend on those minorities to be elected does not make him demented. Everybody knows Scalia does not believe in affirmative action .

            I for one do not believe in any law that give any group benefits, special treatment and advantages over the rest of the population. I for one once rejected a promotion given to me because I was a minority and my company need me to fulfill their quotas. I eventually earned the promotion the old fashion way (by having better results than anybody else) and it was the worth it.

            The rules are the rules. Scalia was appointed by Reagan and confirmed by the Senate and in spite that I also regret the Gore decision what it is is what it is.

            Regarding senile Presidents, I voted for Carter and I voted for Reagan, and I will take Reagan senile over Carter well meaning incompetence any day of the week.

          • Really?? Well Reagan has done more damage to America with his nonsense ideas than any president I can think of. It’s his nonsense idea of trickle down economics, tax cuts will spur the economy, keeping big parts of his spending out of his budgets and spending like a drunken sailor that started the big mess America is in today. He and Bush Jr. are by far the biggest spenders of all time – He leads with an 8.7%/yr budget growth rate, followed closely by Bush Jr. with an 8.3%/y budget growth rate. But it’s his tendency for excess (deficit spending) that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. followed which resulted in the 3 of them being responsible for more than 90% of our current debts. When you talk about being incompetent – Reagan was incompetent in spades.

            And here’s just a short list of Reagan’s many first (more than 30 of them), most of which are not good things:

            1st to turn America into a debtor nation
            1st to increase our debt faster than growth of national
            income within just 8 years
            1st to increase debt faster than the growth of GDP
            1st to double America’s debt in just 8 years
            1st to almost triple America’s debt in just 8 years
            1st to increase spending by 80% in just 8 years
            1st to spend more in 8 years than had been spent in the prior 50 years
            1st to have loan interest as high as 16%
            1st to have the prime rate as high as 20%
            1st to cut taxes for his rich budies by 60%
            1st to deal directly with terrorists
            1st to record the largest one day percentage decline in the dow on 10-19-1987
            1st to have a popularity rating of only 35% after his 1st term
            1st to have unemployment at 10.8% since big depression
            1st to have servicemen killed during peacetime (241 died while sleeping in their barracks in Lebanon)
            1st to have a sitting cabinet member indicted
            1st to have an assistant secretary of state indicted
            1st to have an assistant secretary of defense sent to prison

          • Germansmith

            Where do you get all these crap !! And when have the US being at “peacetime”?

            And nevertheless, Reagan is praised, imitated and emulated by most American leaders….including democrats like Obama and Clinton because he made us feel on the top again…….not like Carter that got us down on ourselves

            I am sure he is equally hated in the Soviet Union…..OOOPS, I forgot, they are not around anymore. Anyway Reagan is still hated by the left and the Unions.

            Maybe we ought to also bad mouth another Republican that had hundred of thousands of Americans kill or maimed, divided our nation and is now reviled by left wing black scholars because he was a RACIST
            Care to guess who? Abraham Lincoln

            Anyway, you ought to rethink your handle…just because you call yourself Independent 1 it does not make you one or the other
            How about Lefty96?

          • I’m an Independent at heart – I voted for Eisenhower, I voted stupidly for Nixon his 1st term and I voted for Ford. But when Reagan got in office, I wasn’t so stupid. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that trickle down economics and tax cuts spur the economy are total fairytales – I wasn’t so dumb as to fall for that crap!!! And unfortunately, the GOP hasn’t let up with their dementia!!! So I haven’t voted Republican since Reagan was in office. But if the party every fielded a sensible candidate with a sensible plank, I could vote GOP again depending on who the Dem candidate was at the time. I try to vote for who I feel the best person is for the presidency.
            A nd despite your unbelief, everything listed as a Reagan FIRST is based on fact. The soldiers killed during peacetime were 241 marines killed while they slept in their barracks in Lebanon in 1983. And that’s not all, there were 7 other attacks on Americans during Reagan’s 2 terms with 31 other people being killed – 17 of them Americans. The outrage being shown by the GOP over Benghazi isone of the biggest shows of hypocracy I’ve ever seen. The 4 years under Obama have been by far the safest for our overseas personnel in 40 years with only 2 attacks and 4 killed. There were 12 attacks, including 9/11, during Bush’s disasterous 8 years with over 3,300 killed; and even 12 attacks during his Dad’s 4 years with 61 being killed. So if you want to stick up for the biggest anti-Christian, hyporcital organization in America – you go right aghead. I’m certainly not going to.

          • Germansmith

            My first vote when I became a citizen was for Carter and then I learned that being an honest good guy does not really a leader make. I voted and supported for Obama in 2008(I would have prefer Hillary), but this time I voted for the lesser of 2 evils

            Currently both parties are disasters because they are controlled by the extremes of their phylosophies.

            If the Republicans would have chosen a candidate like Jon Huntsman there would be Obama no more, but instead they paraded these caravan of extreme idiots and end up picking up the most electable…but still somebody out of touch with the common middle class centrist voter.

            When you have a country where there are more people receiving government benefits that are those paying taxes, the most expensive healthcare system in the world and a military and their expense out of control…we are going down.
            America’s best days are in the past. We are in decline and with our current selfish electorate and their politicians refusing to compromise on taxes or on cuts to benefits I do not see a way out of this fall.

  • dimples37

    I think Scalia is suffering from a severe case of dementia and should abdicate from the bench!!!

    • latebloomingrandma

      It does make one wonder. There has always been much made of his great intellect. But people of high IQ can get dementia also. One of the firsst signs is a lack of self awareness of what you are saying and how it is affecting others. It seems as though he is getting a little more outrageous during the past few years. If he just wants to be a fun loving outrageous senior citizen, ala Betty White, then he should give up such a serious job.

    • idamag

      Scalia told us what he is when he referred to voting rights as a minority entitlement.

  • Lovefacts

    While I am a white, female Jew, I am familiar with Scalia type comments targeting my gender and religion. It is my hope that with his reprehensible comments, of which racial entitlement was just one, will wake up the Supreme Court and the American public to how insidious racism truly is.

    I pray his comments will give us at least a 5-4 ruling in favor of the VRA. Scalia and Thomas are lost causes. They vote together and share the same injudicious outlook on life. Neither ever recognizes they or their family have crossed the line creating a conflict of interest re a case. Roberts and Kennedy are up for grabs. Here’s hoping Roberts doesn’t want to be remembered with the same contempt as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of Dred Scott v Sandford fame.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    Let’s keep the record straight: It was DEMOCRATS who opposed the civil rights act of 1964, and Republicans who helped make it law: The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the “Southern Bloc” of 18 southern Democratic Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”
    The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”

    • WiddleBabyWepublican

      The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC)

      Who on September 16, 1964 became one of the first prominent Democrats to switch his party affiliation to the Republican Party.

      Nice white wash though.

    • Let continue to keep the record straight, everyone of those southern state are now represented by the DIXIE-CAN same folks different party.

      • middleclasstaxpayer

        You missed the point completely..If it were up to democrats in the 1960s, there would be NO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS PASSED! Civil rights legislation was passed because of REPUBLICANS!

        • You’re missing the point – the democratic senators that opposed the bill (18 of them) were all from southern states that have turned Republican since the law went into effect – making it clear that these Democrats were DINOs – Democrats In Name Only. The civil rights legislation was proposed by a Democrat (JFK) in his Civil Rights speech of 6/11/1963 and after his death pushed by and signed into law by another Democrat (LBJ). It was passed with a large bipartisan margin in the House (290-130) and only blocked by these Southern State legislators in the Senate. Admittedly, the final passage was helped by some Republicans in its final vote in the Senate, but it still passed there by a vote of 71-29. So to suggest that there would be no civil rights law passed without the Republicans is a really big stretch!!!!

          • HistoRet

            I believe you will find that every federal Civil Rights law enacted since WWII was a Democratic Party initiative. Check it out.

          • I couldn’t agree more. I’ve asked in several posts for one of the right-wing posters on National Memo to identify for me, ONE just ONE piece of legislation that a Republican has come up with in over the passed 100 years, that has a humanitarian focus and which at the same time doesn’t have an ulterior motive for making money for the rich or corporations in the process. (like Bush pushing for the Medicare drug benefit to satisfy the Drug Industry lobby).
            I can’t find or think of one and no one has responded with one either.

      • idamag

        Vernon, yes. The South was Democrat until President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

        • whodatbob

          Right you are. LBJ is suppose to have said… We (Democtates) have lost the South for the next hundred years when I signed the Civil Rights Act. How righhe was.

    • idamag

      That was when Republicans were decent people.

      • middleclasstaxpayer

        So when Republicans vote YOUR way, they are decent people, but when they vote against you, they are evil….you are a very consistent psychopathic thinker!

        • My sense is you may not have been around in 1964 when the civil rights law was passed. I guarantee you that having been around since before FDR was president that the Republicans of today, are very different from the Republiccans of 1964 and actually very different from the Republicans of 1864 when Lincoln was president. Today, they are nothing more than the American Mafia (I’m speaking of the GOP which Republicans seem to love. And you are what you love.!!!)

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            I’m 70 yrs old, so been there….The reason liberals appear to hold sway now is not hard to understand…Marxist ideas, like turning the many against the few, have always been easy to foist on a gullible public.

            Most are of moderate means, and it’s nice to believe you can get something for nothing, by the government taking care of you. And of course it’s easy to believe “everyone” has more than you do, so the “take from the rich” idea is also easy to support (in the short run).

            Republicans believe in limited government & hard work, which is what made the USA the envy of people worldwide.

            So if “you are what you love,” then you apparently love the idea of class warfare, envying your neighbor (instead of getting out and creating your own successes), and believing obama will provide everything to you on a silver platter with absolutely NO consequences.

            In reality, our unemployment (when counting all those who have given up trying to look for work), is close to 11% (per US News), a record high since WWII, our economy is tanking, and there are no prospects for improvement with a “leader” who hasn’t even had time in the last 18 months to meet with his so called “jobs council.” obama couldn’t even run a 7-11 store, much less the world’s (formery) biggest economy!

          • To begin with, unemployment has been measured the same way for decades, there’s always a residual of people who have given up looking for work – so if it’s 11% now, then you can add 3-4% to every unemployment stat you can find on the internet -your point is meaningless.

            If you’re talking about class warfare, the Republicans are insighting that in spades by constantly creaing legislation that discriminates against someone or creates arcane rules by which they expect people to live their lives. And they’re also the creators class warfare by constantly creating legislaltion that favors the rich and penalizes the middle class and poor.

            If Republicans believe in limited government, why did Bush add 2,000,000 to the size of govt over his disasterous 8 years – they only want limited government with respect to cutting agencies that monitor the disasers corporations want to create to make money – which is what Republicans are all about -MONEY!!! Obama has done more to limit the size of government than any GOP president ever did; he’s actually cut 565,000 from the size of it over the past 4 years.

          • HistoRet

            Seventy years, eh? Most serious folk, as they mature and grow old, discover they don’t know nearly as much as they thought they did when 20 or 21. You’re just too damned old to imagine you know everything! I’m older, but I suspect rather better at remembering what REALLY happened than you are. I recall for example when Pres. Saint Ronald Reagan publicly expressed his puzzlement at some racial incident. He said we never had any racial problems when he was a young man. What he meant was that HE didn’t have any racial problems and never had a thought about those people who did. So you’ve been there and know all about everything? Problem is that most of what you KNOW is simply NOT TRUE. Do you care?

          • whodatbob

            No race problems before the Civil Rights Movement? Gee could that be because you like I are white! In the 40’s as a young white boy black adults steped off the side walk and greeted me with , “Morn’n Master” and a tip of the hat as I was allowed to pass. How demeaning was that for these men? The Civil Rights Movement was and is a fight by African-Americans for respect and equality.

            My family moved from the South in the early when I was 9 years old. The only difference was the black men no longer tiped their hats nor greated me as they step off the sidwalk to allow me to pass. Juat one example of the humilation our Aferican-American brothers endured.

            Ronnie never have any racial promlems when he was a young man, Aferican-Americans had not yet found their voice.

            America is changing for the better since that voice is being heard.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            For your type, the glass is ALWAYS HALF EMPTY…wake up & acknowledge that boogey men are not around every corner….we live in the land of opportunity, IF you are willing to work for it. In business & industry, NO ONE cares about the color of your skin or national origin, all they care about is what you can do! That’s why folks can come here from foreign lands, not even know our language, and STILL become a success, simply thru hard work. And who really objects to having a photo ID, that most areas have been willing to provide FREE? Only those who desire to commit voter fraud to win elections by cheating, NOT by the will of the majority. Stop your complaining and get to work!

        • And I forgot to mention, Republicans have no voted “MY WAY” since they supported the civil rights legislation. (And I’m speaking about on meaningful legislation, not on issues that you would expect them to vote YEA on because of common sense or that they know voting NAY on would cost them in the next election). About the only meaningful bills they’ve vote YEA on since then has been something that includes tax cuts for them and their rich buddies & cronies; or subsidies for the corporations that pass them thousands of dollars to their reelection campaigns.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Before you pat yourself on the back, just remember this: your “hero” only won reelection by the narrowest of margins….a scant 1%….once the populace sees another 4 years of the same old stuff (more job losses, rising prices, lower wages, loss of healthcare benefits because of obamacare, and rising world problems with Iran & the Middle East), his very slim 1% winning margin will evaporate completely, and he will leave office in disgrace, forcing democrats nationwide to lose office & lose power….all because they had the gall to nomiinate & install a loser TWICE!

          • Won by the narrowest margin!! You are a nitwit!! He won by over 100 electoral votes and by a popular margin of more than 5 million and not only that but he won by state count also 26 to 24. And when all the popular votes were finally counted he won by 3% not 1%/ Which is one heck of a lot better than Bush ever did – especially considering he lost the popular vote in the 2000 election and won only because a biased Supreme Court handed the election to him.

            You really are clueless aren’t you!!! When are you going to get your head out of the wrong place????

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Since I’m sure you hale from a large class of liberal thinkers who always keep their heads in a hole where the sun never shines, I am forgiving you in advance for not understanding my previous comments. Yes, obama “won” by 3 million ( 5% of VOTES), but in a country of over 330 million souls, that equates to less than 1% of our population. And his “win” was by a MUCH NARROWER margin than in 2008, reflecting the loss of confidence in him by many, even in his own party. His “win” was partly by luck, and partly by probable massive voter fraud in places where no one was required to show a photo ID, even though photo ID’s were offered free to voters….It’ amazing..we need a photo ID to board an airplane, to get a driver’s license, etc, but in order to elect the most powerful figure in the world, we can act anonymously???? What a great world it is, for liberals!

          • Boy, you’re really dellusional! So now you’re going to calculate his winning margin by the entire population which is made up of millions of people, many who are not old enough to vote and say he only won by 1% of our entire population??? What kind of nitwit logic is that??? Go stick your head in the sand somewhere. That’s pure dumb!!!!!!!!!

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            OK, forget the 1%….He STILL survived the reelection by a MUCH SMALLER MARGIN than in 2008….even his followers are falling away as the economy & jobs dwindle. Over the next four years, as he continues the slow decline of the US & US economy, the net result will be that democrats will LOSE BIG in 2016 when the chickens come home to roost. As for the sequester he caused, explain his 2006 comments below:
            “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

            ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

            So, WHOSE FAILURE IS IT NOW, I wonder?????????

          • old_blu

            Really? You call the guy that won a loser? You do know the election is over and you lost? Right loser?

      • Which unfortunately was quite a long time in the past.

    • You give all the proof needed to see how,over the years,the democrats have evolved and repubs have become degenerate. How is it that the same party of Lincoln who freed the slaves are now actively engaged in efforts to suppress participation of blacks and minorities in the pursuit of their civil liberties.It is because the republican party is a criminal enterprise participating in a conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of fascist,plutocratic,and corporate interests,and absolutist religious groups.The jig is up.The majority of America has spoken and rejected the lie that the radical repub/t party continues to promote while struggling in its death throes.It will soon be relegated to the dusty pages of history and the thin mists of time.God Speed and Good Riddance!!!

      • whodatbob

        Maybe it is the party of Lincoln. He had plans to send all the freed Slaves back to West Africa. America was to be a white country. His death ended those plans. Fast forward 148 years and the Repuicks want to keep decendents freed Slaves subverviant. Little changes.

    • charleo1

      The record speaks for itself. It seems to me to be a clear case of what happens when
      a Democratic President agrees with the Republicans. By the next election, the entire
      Republican Party had changed it’s mind on both the Civil, and Voting Rights bills
      they helped to pass. The Southern voters changed Parties, and gave the Country
      President Richard Nixon. And they haven’t improved one bit sense. In either their
      support of Civil Rights, or in their choices for President.

  • Scalia has become a goddamn stinking lowlife fascist piece of shit.He is a traitor to the American Democracy and decency and should be removed!

  • snickers413

    They know if they don’t cheat or steal they will be wiped out. There’s no way people like Scalia will do the right thing. There’s not an impartial bone in his body. People like him and Robert’s and the uppity black justice Clarence who now thinks hes white, needto all be impeached! I wish the old folks who are going to retire would do so before all our rights are taken away. What the heck are they waiting for? Obama needs to get some more people in there that don’t think their God’s and can make rules the way they interpret them. These old white men will always feel entitled and we need more women who know what it’s like to grow up as an minority!

  • Thomas sits there with his mouth shut!

    • Thomas is no more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than I’m qualified to be an astronaut.

  • As a father of what? – 9 – 11 kids, Justice Scalia ahs shown himself to be a “good” Catholic and is probably p*&&%d, too, that he missed the Inquisition…

    He is, in any case, a living. breathing offense to all that is good and decent in the Constitution and in our American Lives and living proof that graduating from Law School is no guarantee that Justice and Fairness will be promoted by its graduates!

    It appears that even the Mafia must have its representative on the Supreme Court…

    • whodatbob

      Your comment is an insult to both theAmerican Mafia and American Catholics!

      • old_blu

        : ))

  • How much more hurt will he be able to inflict on the people he hates before he is gone?

    What does he care?
    As a good catholic, he’ll just “wash”his hands at Saturday-Confession, go to church and receive “Holy” Communion at Sunday Mass, and on Monday he’ll start hresh and full of …vinegar pronouncing his visions of “right and wrong” from the bench!

    Typically, most bullies are obese and full of themselves…

  • lana ward

    The media you “people” listen to are turning you into Castro!!!!

    • BDC_57

      Quit your lying bitch.

      • idamag

        It is best to ignore that former welfare queen that my hard earned taxes, along with a lot of others) supported.

        • As I suggested yesterday, Lana obviously says what she does only to rile up other posters on these threads – she never offers anything of substance other than inflammatory comments. I think posters here should stop responding to her nonsense posts.

          • neeceoooo

            I agree with your analogy and you are right, we need to ignore her/him.

      • lana ward

        Omuslim hasn’t dropped one of his bombs on you yet? To bad. Maybe one of the illegals he’s released will shoot you!!

        • daniel bostdorf

          Another reminder about what a troll is like Lana:

          “…..posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages for personal engrandizement in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog…… Primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

          Sound familiar Lana?

    • daniel bostdorf


  • lana ward

    Anyone who says Scalia is racist, is a racist

    • daniel bostdorf


  • Hungry_Cowboy

    Another Putz !!!!

  • Hungry_Cowboy

    You are RIGHT ON !!!

  • Hungry_Cowboy

    Right now in most RED states legislators in the State Capitals are seriously working on ways to exclude the voters during the last Presidential election fom voting for a People’s Choice President.

  • Pamby50

    Wow and the right always accuses us on the left of selecting activist judges. Shame on them for this group.

  • Coming from a Justice of the Supreme Court this is a very sad commentary on our society. No wonder these SOBs feel compelled to arm themselves to the teeth and see every person does not not look or sound like them as a criminal or a terrorist. Scalia should replace his robe with the traditional white robe used by animals like him. Republican presidents have made so pretty wild nominations to the SC, Scalia’s is, by far, the worst. Voting rights for everyone is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement”. Wow. I don’t know about the racial part, but perhaps an Amendment is needed to prevent people like him, and other apartheid relics, from voting. What a moron!

  • Germansmith

    I am almost always at odds with the latest rulings of the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer
    but it is the job of members of SCOTUS to rattle the lawyers arguing points before them.
    It is NOT their job to be politically correct in this process.

    I personnally tired of political correctness and the news jumping on anybody that may have said something unsensitive.

    The Civil Rights Act was a very important and necessary law back in the 1960s, but since enacted regulations and processes that are burdensome to 16 states in an effort to protect a minority, it is vital that we evaluate if it is still necessary, specially since the country elected as President a member of such a minority.
    As well it is also important that we ask ourselves if the power of the vote have improved the lots of blacks in our society and if not, what is needed …

    • charleo1

      In 2006, a study consisting of over 15,000 pages, and 21 hours of testimony, to
      determine just that. If the Federal oversight the law called for, was still necessary.
      After reviewing the information gathered, the Senate voted 98-0 to continue
      the law for another 25 years. And, of course the election of Barack Obama says
      great things about the progress that has been made. The fact remains Mr. Obama
      did not carry but one State effected by the law. Nor did President Obama carry the
      parts of North Carolina, still subject to the law. As far as the law being burdensome
      to those States. When left to their own devises, the burden was borne by the African American in the South, for a hundred years after emancipation. I live in the South.
      And I have no doubt, without Federal supervision, the fire hoses, and billie clubs,
      would be back in no time at all. Trust me.

      • daniel bostdorf

        nicely stated. thank you.

  • As for me Scalia surposed to be taken to jail for misstrust and missconducts or deciving all Americans for nothing than his racial drbates of justic. The same way they chooses the best pop that could lead the Catholic world and do what people likes, then after can follow him with the justice of imoralities etc, ”If a terrorist could be taken off the human sight, tjhat’s how Scalia is made to silence from the face of mankind”.

  • daniel bostdorf

    Getting back to the point of this article.

    Ms. Tucker hits the nail on the head with her summary:

    “The Voting Rights Act can limit the damage of those voter suppression efforts, at least in those areas of the country where Section 5 has jurisdiction. In the past three years, for example, the Justice Department used its authority to rebuff harsh voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina and to temper restrictions on early voting in Florida. Those examples show that the Voting Rights Act, for which some brave souls gave their lives, is still necessary. Unfortunately, Scalia and his fellow partisans see the law — which simply ensures that voters of color can exercise their right to vote without harassment — as a giveaway to appease those uppity blacks.”

    Her article has nothing to do with any other troll inspired DIATRIBES*** like percentage of votes Obama won by, or Scalia’s religious views, or whether it is the GOP or Democrats that have de-evoled, etc blah blah blah…

    ***Diatribe: apparent inability to keep your pen from drifting from the main objective of discussion i.e. an off topic tirade, harangue ie any long, pompous speech or writing of a tediously hortatory.

    Dominic Villa has a good point:

    “but perhaps an Amendment is needed to prevent people like him, and other apartheid relics, from voting. ”

    The House is controlled by the rabid GOP/Teaparty.
    Snowball chance in hell until the Democrats regain the House in 2014.