While Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's remarks during oral arguments in the Voting Rights Act case left some of us scratching our heads about where he came up with the "perpetuation of racial entitlement" argument, Chad Flanders, an assistant professor of law at Saint Louis University School of Law, has an idea, tracing the phrase to a 1979 paper by then-professor Scalia:
Scalia's point (in the context of a extended, slashing attack on racial preferences) was that affirmative action works on the idea that because of past discrimination, present generations owe a "debt" to those who have been disadvantaged by discrimination. Scalia, needless to say, thought that the idea was repugnant and even racist -- and he said so.
...
In his article, Professor Scalia did not write about how affirmative action might become entrenched, and hard to displace. But there was the idea that affirmative action gives us a system of racial spoils that are provided to the minority race, spoils not based on present merit or need, but only on past discrimination.
Flanders also points to a 1984 George Will column that uses the same reasoning (and the same phrase). In his column, "Jackson expands idea of racial entitlement," Will argues a contradiction between race-conscious accommodations and democratic majority rule.
Flanders reiterates that we can't know for sure if Scalia was drawing parallels between affirmative action and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but at least he gives us one possible framework in which to understand the Justice's perspective.
If you're interested, Scalia's original 1979 paper is here:
Leave a Comment:
Well, of course it's true, because we know that Southern states would never in this enlightened day put in place racially discriminatory laws, right? It's absurd to think such a thing.
Aah... Here we have a classic example of Poe's Law...
At least, that is what I assume this is... Nobody is crass enough to actually mean this callousness... I hope...
Racism is not and never was only a Southern thing. That may be part of the problem, everyone thinks it was only a Southern issue. Abraham Lincoln was a racist. The US had racist policies long after the civil war, even today. US Armed Services weren't integrated until 1948, even then Blacks and other minorities were only allowed to serve in the service jobs like Stewards Mate. Many Blacks that were working for the US government were removed well into the 1900's. Separate but Equal was the law until 1954. Even after Brown vs Board of Education it was still de facto law. In fact the US was founded on racist premises.
The US supported reparations for Jews who were forced into involuntary servitude by the Nazi's, but oppose it for Blacks.
One of the main reasons many don't like and want to see President Obama fail is racism, most will not admit it, but it is true.
The US has a long way to go to be the country we profess to be.
Scalia is not just a blatant racist, he is not fit to hold a position at the supreme court. and as an attorney - he is not fit either unless he can manage to get his clients off on pleading his own personal incompetence, insanity, or stupidty... whatever works.
I love the way you work, Rachel (Just listening to you talking about your whiteboard) and this article is another example.
A common mistake... Just because this article is on Rachel's blog, you believe Rachel wrote it...
On the line beow the headline, it says,"By Will Femia", not Rachel... Rachel rarely writes articles for her blog, although I have seen her post comments on occasion... Not under her own name, of course, but she does have her right to privacy...
I love that Rachel wants to make sure her hate mail is sent to the right address. Awesome.
one more thing.....
ALL RACES ARE ENTITLED BECAUSE VOTING AND LIFE ARE ENTITLEMENTS!
scalia's only defence to remaining a racist stupid ignoramus on the supreme court for life is, "it's my entitlement".
I still want all forms to have a check box that says "Human" under race
first off i would like to say that i do not agree with justice scalias argument. he states that past precedant is not a valid reason to continue an existing law. so he is assuming without citing proof that minorities in the south are no longer kept from lawful voting. it has been shown that in many gop controled states that minorities have been wrongfully denied the right to vote. when you change the rules to vote a short time before an election you are trying to influence the result. any intelligent person can see that. anyone that tries to influence peoples right to vote, or their abilty to vote is guilty of treason. our country was founded on the principal of old, rich, white men deciding what is best for everyone. and the gop wants that to stay the same. ask justice scalia this; if you were a minority american and your local voting district kept moving the voting hours and days around in a confusing fashion, how would you feel. would you feel your civil rights were being taken away. if he says no, than he is voting as a republican and not as a justice of the supreme court!
Actually, his argument is not that southern states no longer discriminate against blacks any more... It is that other states, such as Pensylvania and Ohio, also discriminate against minorities, so why should the states designated in Article 5 of the VRA be singled out for specific action by the DOJ... Everybody discriminates, so why target states that did so in the past, and not those doing it now?
Of course, the logical answer is to widen the DOJ's authority to every state, but these people don't really think logically... If they did, they wouldn't be racist bigots, would they? Besides, expanding regulation is hardly the Republican meme...
When I think about the concept of "racial entitlement" and how difficult it is to overcome, I am reminded that racial entitlement (and sex entitlement) was built into the nascent federal constitution - a racial entitlement in favor of white male privilege, something that still exists, despite an abolitionist and suffrage movement, a civil war, and at least four constitutional amendments (and a failed equal rights amendment).
The institutionally and culturally biased Justice Scalia is, himself, a prime example, even the epitome, of arrogant white male racist, sexist, cissexist and heterosexist entitlement.
Putting lipstick on a racist and you still have a racist...
I didn't know Scalia was a cross-dresser!!!
... or was that just Chap-stick?...
Good work by the professor, thank you for presenting this information. What is eye opening about his position is that he had held it at least since the late 1970s, more than thirty years ago. His position is set in stone quite obviously. The fact that Shelby County, Alabama has recently been found to have violated the Voting Rights Act makes their being the plaintiff a slap in the face. He is unfazed.. In Scalia world, the past , state sanctioned racism ended, it's over, move along nothing to see here, He will not and does not consider the obvious, recent attempts to disenfranchise voters by Republican state governments a part of his decision. Quite possibly, Antonin Scalia could sit in a voting precinct and observe a voting official require a minority voter to guess the number of jelly beans in a large jar before voting without alarm.
When Scalia says he cares about the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution, I guess he would still include the 3/5th clause...
We despise Antonin Scalia, not because he is a pompous ass, but, because he is a pompous ass with the power to do harm, and because, he has done harm. He has done harm to this nation. That is also why we despise Dick Cheney.
ditto. he needs to be "impeached" NOW.
Agree. But I suspect that if I knew Antonin Scalia I would despise him even if he did not have the power he now has to do great harm. He's really horrible, really horrible. It must be really hard on his family to have him around.
Does anyone else think that Scalia's sort of barely controlled rage sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh? I mean the tone of his voice not just the content.
LOL! saw that a while back & am glad it occurred to you as well. they are 2 peas in a pod, twin whales. two @!$%#s in the same diaper.
If God is so kind as to allow me to live to see it, it is likely that the day Antonin Scalia dies will be the happiest day of my life. I expect I will drop to my knees and weep at the thought that a man who has inflicted so much harm on America with such sadistic delight is dead and burning in hell.
Actually, in Dante's Inferno, Traitors to their country, like Scalia, are buried up to their necks in a lake of solid ice, in a wind so cold it freezes your eyes open in seconds...
Bet you didn't know, there's a section of Hell that's actually frozen over, eh?
I was thinking of the Einstein quote, “Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value.”
― Albert Einstein
And I realized that the U.S. is ruled by successful people, most of them men. People of value are not valued or respected in the U.S. That's why we have people like Scalia, who is an evil man in the Arendt sense of the word, ensconced in the highest court in our land. And not just him. It wouldn't be so bad if he were the exception. We have a majority of successful, evil men in the highest court in the land. We're f*cked.
Scalia is wrong on two points:
1. He shouldn't equate voting protection with racial preferences in hiring or college admissions. Nobody is asking for more than one vote.
2. The reason for current racial protections isn't past discrimination, it's current discrimination. Preference for one's own group may be a nasty fact of human nature, whether one is a minority or a majority member. We can have reasonable debates about how to deal with discrimination, but if we pretend it is over, we depart from reality.
Scalia wants to protect his own racial entitlement by destroying the Voting Rights Act. Someone should remind Scalia that once upon a time in America, Italians were not considered white.
We like you very much.My wife(Erlene Wiese) thinks you are the best thing in political News.Scalia stinks on ice.President Obama is as good as or better than any President we've ever had and I voted for FDR.We're from Houston,Texas and have had some good Mexican friends(vote for the Dream act).Vote for background checks so anarchists can be investigated. Police should not be outgunned.Global warming/Climate Change should get started in high gear for multiple reasons.Be well and stay Happy.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) must be upheld by the supreme court: Discrimination is alive today unfortunately; Liberty and justice for all is openly sabotaged and the Supreme Court is inviting trouble of great magnitudnal proportions if it dares to fail its ultimate mandate: to uphold everyone's constitutional rights.
We not only need to keep the protections in the current Voting Rights Act (VRA), it should be expanded. The numerous despicable attempts to restrict voting made during the last election cycle are proof of that. Anyone who truly believes the VRA is obsolete needs to recognize, given last year's voter suppression efforts, the Jim Crowe era is biding its time, lurking in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to rear its head once again.
If properly educated and aroused to stand up against Supreme Court activism from the bench the entire nation will speak against it because the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is not about political parties; the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is about individual rights protection. Bank on it! it is time to review; the Supreme Court's Justice Scalia's attack on VRA as " racial entitlements" will not stand the test of time. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the Voting Rights ACT it is no longer acting as an unbiased institution and that, its Justices, can be challenged in public. Supreme Court Justices, get up and do your job or we will make it happen! Count on it!
Now Even if you are dumb enough to believe that all is OK with the world and there are no reasons to have the voting rights act on the books. Then why are the the parties at opposite end's on this ? Why are the Republicans in America trying to keep people from the poles ? Well I will tell you what I think. I think there may be a dozen or two, man and women (Billionaires) in America that have the means to buy the power it wants to call all shots in this Country. The only way they can obtain this right now is get the people they want in office. To buy them so to say. But they know they can be stopped at the voting polls as proven in the 2012 election. They know the more that get out and vote there chances are reduced substantially.
Commentator George Will knows this and should be ashamed of his views on VRA. He says VRA is 47 years old. Is that old ? I don't think so. Look at the constitution, at that II Amendment a lot older right. SS, Medicare, still very new in the big picture. But look at who wants to change them. Not working men and women, no the big bosses. They do not like to match payments that is what this is all about. They did not like it back in the 1930s and they do not like it now. So Americans do not be fooled by the right wing opposition and all of you older people that now have this little benefit fight like h--- to keep it just as it is. It just might be all there is between eating and striving !!
The argument is that VRA is discriminatory against Southern states to require them but not other states to seek pre-clearance for voting laws; I actually agree. The Voting Rights Act should require *all* states to seek pre-clearance. After what we've seen the GOP try to pass in states all across the nation prior to the last 2012 election, I see no reason this safeguard against voter suppression should be limited to just Southern states as suggested by VRA of 1965 but now should be expanded to apply to ALL 50 states.
It is urgent that whoever can go to the Supreme Court and organize peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience protests in front of the Supreme Court ASAP!
Dear Supreme Court Justices,
I don't like black people. Anything we can do about this?
(this is confidential, right? I wouldn’t want this to get around)
I especially don’t like black people who boss me around.
I’m supposed to be the boss, not them. When did that happen?
I’m not the only one who feels this way. Believe you me, a lot of those elected representatives in Washington DC would say it too if they thought they could without being ganged up on by the liberal media.
Where is their right to free speech? When will their voice be heard?
If only everything was the way it used to be. Life was better then. I had a good job. I had a house. My children had a future. What happened? Where did we go wrong?
The president has done nothing. How can we get rid of him, so we can get back on track to prosperity and good times? Can you think of a way? Any way? Can I help nudge you in any direction so you can have an excuse to abuse your Supreme power to set us back on course? Let me know. I’m ready to do my part.
At least the stock market is thriving now, back to what it was, even better. I somehow missed the trickle-down party during the last boom but I’m sure I’ll get my fair share this time around. Don’t let them screw it up and regulate us into catastrophe again, ok? Corporations are not just people, my friend, they’re good people. The kind of people we need in this country right now.
And women--don’t get me started! Anything we can do about that gaggle of whiners, too? Invasive this, reproductive rights that. There ought to be a law. And this stupid rape thing would go away if they’d just stop talking about it. Some people just can’t see the forest through the trees.
Anyway, thanks for listening. I know you’ll do your best. Just remember, it’s the early voter catches the worm. Don’t let them do it. That’s our worm. Always was. Always will be.
Respectfully yours,
Albert A. Bama