In Defense of Antonin Scalia
Before we get into the substance of the
debate on Justice Scalia's controversial remarks – here are a few items to note:
1) The writer of this article is a law
school graduate- and passer of the NY Bar-who has firm grasp on the law.
2) Antonin Scalia never said he was, “White and proud.”
3) Antonin Scalia did say that Section 5 of the Voting Rights act was a “racial entitlement.” He did not say that voting rights were a racial entitlement – more on that distinction later.
4) This article does not favor Republicans to Democrats, nor does it agree (or disagree) with Scalia's statements. It presents the facts in a clear, unbiased and educated way.
2) Antonin Scalia never said he was, “White and proud.”
3) Antonin Scalia did say that Section 5 of the Voting Rights act was a “racial entitlement.” He did not say that voting rights were a racial entitlement – more on that distinction later.
4) This article does not favor Republicans to Democrats, nor does it agree (or disagree) with Scalia's statements. It presents the facts in a clear, unbiased and educated way.
1- Do Not Confuse Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act with Actual Voting Rights
 |
| A screen-cap direct from the Justice Department's website |
What Scalia Said: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (shown in the picture above) is a "racial entitlement." He did not say voting rights were a racial entitlement.
You see, the uproar stems from a confusion over the subject of Scalia's remarks. In a session on the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Scalia did say the words “racial entitlement.” However, those words were aimed at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – which has very little to do with one's ability to vote. In fact, Section 5 pertains to a state's ability to redistrict voting boards and zones. It does not mention who can or cannot vote, nor does it mention a racial component to voting. Scalia's comments were directed at the districting/redistricting of areas – not on one's ability to vote.
Briefly stated: a state is allowed to draw voting districts as it sees fit. All of our states have districts – and we (as citizens) all belong to one. These lines are drawn up by our state representatives. However, not all states have the ability to draw these lines by themselves. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 indicates that several southern states are not allowed this ability. Why? Because they were the most notorious perpetrators of Jim Crow laws. So, these select states must draft a redistricting plan and send it to the federal government for approval.
 |
| States affected by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act cannot redistrict without approval from the federal government. All other states are free to redistrict as they please - without direct government oversight and say-so. |
Herein lies the problem: we have a minor thing in America called federalism. This essentially holds that States have unassailable rights and powers that the federal government cannot impede upon. Moreover, any power not not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is impliedly granted to the states. Conservatives are big believers in States' rights (and small federal government.) Liberals tend to minimize States' rights and expand federal control. Scalia, the consummate conservative, does not favor the federal government encroaching on States' rights. Further, Scalia is of the opinion that no race should be shown any preference by law or statute- which Section 5 clearly does. This is not politicking here – its just facts.
So, when Antonin Scalia said that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the last vestige of “racial entitlements,” - he was referring to the preferences and protections given to minority districts in a select few states. Such preferences and protections are not afforded to the American population as a whole – nor are they given to minorities outside of some southern states. This is what he means by a “racial entitlement” namely that one (or a few) races are given preferential treatment over others. Scalia's comments had nothing – and we repeat nothing- to do with a minority's ability and right to vote.
Furthermore, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has created a 48 year inequality among the states - with some given more freedoms than others. Our union was created as a union of equals - not of haves and have nots.
2- Scalia Never Said He Was
“White and Proud.”
Much
of the fury with Scalia is rooted in a quote being maliciously
attributed to him. The quote is “ I am White and Proud.” Such a
statement evokes images of White America terrorizing the Black
community – and evokes concepts of racial superiority. Fortunately,
Scalia never said it- just as we can imagine a Supreme Court Justice
never would.
The quote is attributable to a Representative and Black community activist, Jim Clyburn,- who (in misguided fashion) said:
"What
Justice Scalia said, to me, was, 'The 15th Amendment of the
Constitution ain't got no concerns for me because I'm white and
proud.'"
Horrendous grammar aside, his quote was misinterpreted to have come
directly from Scalia -as if he were a raging racist. How has this played out? You tell us:
 |
| Apparently, Mr. Boykin forgot to "fact check" that Section 5 has nothing to do with the right (or act) of voting. |
Astoundingly,
people still believe (nearly 10 days removed from the event) that
Scalia made such a heinous comment.
3- Scalia's Ethnicity Was Attacked:
The
Twitter-verse found pleasure in attacking Scalia's ethnicity - as if his being Italian had anything to do with his point of view: (NSFW)
Others
aimed their hatred directly at the Italian culture:
 |
| Sure thing: Can we start by giving back the largest lynching in US history that was so graciously "given" to us? |
A
complete lack of research or understanding about Scalia's comments
led to a barrage of anti-Italian sentiment. The pen may be mightier
than the sword – but, ignorance possesses incomparable strength.
At ItalianAware, we are not concerned with your political leanings - provided you are informed. The "outrage" over Scalia's comments stemmed from an uninformed public being riled up into a frenzy by an equally uninformed media.
Get Social With Us:
Great analysis!
ReplyDelete