This is the definition of "tone deaf".

Wow. And what part of section V of the voting rights act is a "racial entitlement"? All it really does is make sure the rights of every American citizen to vote is not tampered with. It provides no special privilege to anyone. I guess there are no more racial issues down south anymore.

He's reliving his youth, the 60's were vetty, vetty good to him. Too bad they weren't good for all of us.

let the scotus wingnuts do their worst--i've got a feeling it might do for the left what roe v. wade did for the right.

When did voting become an 'entitlement'? Racial or otherwise.

The juxtaposition of the two simultaneous events struck me as rather extraordinary ironic.

GOTP: Let's pretend "everything is equal" when it's convenient for us.

Progressive: How about we allow everything to be equal for everyone like it says in the Constitution.

GOTP: Well, that's not right, it's "reverse engineering" and WE make the rules WE want you people to play by so it's going to be our way.....

Every time a black person votes, an angel converts to Islam.

I find Article five is in fact discriminatory! ALL states should be covered by it, not just those that once were deemed racist. I say this as many states unaffected by it are gerrymandering minorities out of power and envoking voter ID laws that smell ripe with Jim Crow rot.

Yes, it is so very wrong on many levels to unveil Rosa Parks Memorial while the SCOTUS looks at repealing VRA most important element.

We just saw some states working hard to prevent and/or slow certain folks voting. Right, the Spanish speaking folks vote on Wed. and the early voting bust be limited.

What's wrong with having someone make sure there's no elements of discrimination to affect voting?

I'm sick of these bigoted, regressive, overly conservative old men holding sway over the laws. They've done too much damage and it's time they retired. Voting rights are everyones rights. If you want to talk about racial entitlement let's look at the racial entitlement that we so-called "whites" have had all these years. And by the way, only paper is white.

Supreme Court Where is Thine Supremacy.

The voting rights act will now -- become a permanent campaign item -- for whoever believes in the right to vote.

That the world has changed, we have no doubt, as it was the right to vote that was not protected in the original Constitution but rather was delegated to the states.

This was because the original right vote was purposely discriminatory, and what better place to divide that responsibility to discriminate -- than to hide it in plain sight.

That the Constitution has changes, we have in known fact, blacks, minorities and women were granted that right to vote.

So it clearly follows that the right to vote is in conflict with the ability of act to be purposely discriminatory and to hide it under the ruse of state rights.

Those two things cannot coexist without encouraging endless local machinations by those claiming state powers not so claimed at the federal level at to belonging to the state.

Surely today, voting rights, granted, in fact by some constitutional amendments, are in conflict with the unfinished work to transfer of this power to the federal government, needed to complete the right to vote.

That work is not complete, hence the voting rights act sought to remedy in legislation -- whereas it clearly had to be a corrective amendment; that addressed all forms of voting discrimination that are regularly sought as new machinations by the several states and local fiefdoms.

The passage of specific sections to remedy the pattern of discrimination long neglected by Congress was merely an expedient to correct a long standing and permanent and recurring problem.

Today to overrule that expedient that has cost the country dearly and without the fullness of remedy is to swing the pendulum backward and to suspend the process of improving justice over the imperfect laxity of the Congress. The cost of doing the endless future campaigns to correct the egregious wrong clearly wasteful, and the cost dear, and outcome halting and dangerously reversible. History cannot be allowed to be so reversed.

So what is the right thing to do? It would not take the Wisdom of Solomon to keep this law in place, and to request that Congress produce a permanent non-expiring law or a Constitution amendment that makes new machinations by the several states and local fiefdoms subject to remedies such as voiding elections and requiring new elections. The politics might take a long time, but that is a problem of politics not of time.

We know from history, that there is no way to stop progress, to remove the right to vote, any more than we can stop new machinations to rig the elections, and to rig the voting districts and the precincts, and to rig the electoral college, and to buy elections, and to buy politicians, and to use the asymmetric wealth to purchase the media, and to purchase journalists, and to bias the whole of the country by technological saturation advertising.

Pray for the day when the only place of power is in the confines of a private voting booth, and blessed be the time of the voter to think in peaceful resolution and the vote.

The country ought to recite the pledge of allegiance every now and then.

If we, as a society, are going to be reversing legal progress made during the Civil Rights movement, then I suggest the next 'entitlement' to go should be the 1968 Supreme Court ruling that community covenants restricting land ownership to white anglo-saxon protestants were unconstitutional.

Bring back the practice of barring shiftless Roman Catholics, such as Justices Scalia and Roberts, from owning property in my home town. No more 'entitlements' for Roman Catholics!

I mean, no municipality in the country limits property rights to WASPS today (because it has been illegal for 35 years), so the problem has been solved, right?

(And, for those dropped on the head as children, this is snark.)

Voting became a "racial entitlement", in Justice Scalia's phrase, on February 3, 1870, when the 15th Amendment was ratified: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The citizens of the United States are thus entitled to vote, and this entitlement is guaranteed to all races. Congress has enacted appropriate legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as reauthorized in 2006, to enforce this article. Any decision by the Supreme Court voiding this act or any portion of it, except on account of a subsequent amendment, is itself unconstitutional, and if that happens the Congress should pass a law revoking such a decision by explicitly citing its authority under the 15th amendment. This would be a valid overrule of Marbury v. Madison in a clear case of judicial overreach.

l know this is about Justice Scalia, but I would really like to know which side Justice Clarence Thomas is going to come down on. We're probably all pretty sure he will side with his regular cronies, as usual. If this is the case, then Scalia's shame is only minute compared to what Thomas's shame should be!!!!!

All those AZZholes together in one place and they didn't find time for discussion on the sequester fix??

Scalia is the worst.