Scalia, Kagan, and Sotomayor Slug it Out over ‘Voting Rights Act’

It’s about time. We’ve needed a battle over ideology on the Supreme Court that the public gets to read about. The 1965 discriminatory Voting Rights Act is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Who would ever question such an Act? I mean, voting rights is the staple of our Republic.

Moreover, to question the legitimacy of the Voting Rights Act puts you in the same company as the KKK. At least that’s what Michael Moore maintains. Here’s what Justice Scalia said:

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

What many people do not know is that the Voting Rights Act is not equal in the way it is applied. Not every state is under the Act’s jurisdictional demands. So here we have a law designed to stop discrimination, and yet the Act itself is discriminatory.

Cranky liberal Dana Milbank is thrilled that two of the court’s newest justices are willing to take on Scalia:

“For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down.”

Congress unanimously voted to extend the Voting Rights Act. They did so, Scalia pointed out, because it’s not in their political interests to vote against what they know is a discriminatory law. They will be marked forever as a racist.

The Voting Rights Act has been described as “an act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and for other purposes.” How does an Act enforce an Amendment? The Amendment is the Act.

The Act is discriminatory because it does not apply to all states. Consider that Section 5 of the Act “requires state and local governments in certain parts of the country to get federal approval (known as ‘preclearance’) before implementing any changes they want to make in their voting procedures: anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in the county.” Notice: “in certain parts of the country.” Section 5 applies to all or parts of the following states, not to every state and county:

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • New Hampshire
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Texas
  • Virginia

The argument has been that there is still racial discrimination. If that’s the case, then make the Voting Rights Act apply to all states.

In addition, are we to believe that voting discrimination is a one-way street? Because the Voting Rights Act is not enforceable against Blacks, Blacks can violate the law without fear of prosecution.  Are we to believe that Blacks are immune to discrimination? There was the New Black Panther intimidation case in Philadelphia where whites were kept from voting. There’s the black woman in Ohio who says she voted for Obama more than once.

These are fraudulent voting acts that we are aware of. We don’t know how Blacks may be rigging elections. They’re sinners just like White people. The same is true of everybody. Sin doesn’t discriminate.

Neither Pennsylvania nor Ohio is under the jurisdiction of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Scalia is right in his condemnation of the discriminatory nature of the Voting Rights Act. But his protestations won’t go very far because Justices Kagan and Sotomayor were put on the court for political reasons.