Really now Justice Scalia?

I would like to ask the same questions. 

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the “perpetuation of racial entitlement,” saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn’t anything to be gained politically from voting against it.

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes,” Scalia said during oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder.

“Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who’s going to vote against that?” Scalia wondered. He said that the Voting Rights Act had effectively created “black districts by law.”

There may be 5 or more votes to strike down one or both parts of the Voting Rights Act. So what exactly does that mean for the country? 

Section 2 – generally prohibits voter discrimination 

Section 5 – preclearance (Something that even I don’t understand…) 

The way I see it, the Voting Rights Act enabled everyone and anyone citizen the ability to vote without facing discrimination or voter suppression. Ahhh, the keyword here is voter suppression, I bet that sounds pretty darn familiar. Ohio? Pennsylvania? 

I don’t think, as the Supreme Court troll does, 


About squishymaru

Master's student in chemical engineering with a B.S. in chemical engineering as well. Loves chemistry, math, increasing diversity in STEM, politics, and public health advocacy. Loves reading, writing, and being active -- mentally and physically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s