Trending Topics

Touré Tears Into Antonin Scalia Over ‘Racial Entitlement’ Argument

Touré Tears Into Antonin ScaliaMSNBC co-host Touré on Friday scolded Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for arguing against the Voting Rights Act and calling the effect of that legislation a “racial entitlement.”

Touré, who appeared with MSNBC host Martin Bashir, found the argument Scalia advanced offensive and called the language the justice used “completely racist.”

“I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it’s attributable – very likely attributable – to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement,” Scalia said in Supreme Court arguments about the constitutionality of portions of the VRA. “It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political process.”

Bashir accused the Supreme Court justice of delivering a political speech from the bench. Touré agreed, noting that the Court has become more politicized in recent years, even becoming the equivalent of a second Congress.

“Is fairness a racial entitlement?” Touré asked. “Is protecting people’s right to vote a racial entitlement?”

“We have these shenanigans happening all the time,” he continued. “And protecting them is an entitlement? So, you’re giving us the right to vote, as if we were the takers in this game of makers and takers?”

Read more: Mediaite.com

What people are saying

4 thoughts on “Touré Tears Into Antonin Scalia Over ‘Racial Entitlement’ Argument

  1. Mark Peterson says:

    Wait, I thought Toure' was a fictional SNL character intended to make fun of black racist newscasters like Al Sharpton…. you mean to tell me this whole time I wasn't watching COMEDY?

  2. Fairness for conservatives would be giving 10 people a math test, of 8th grade level, and giving 10 gold bars to the first person who got all answers right.
    Leftists would calll this racist since Obama admitted he couldn't help mooshell's daughters with 7th grade math homework on Jay Leno's show.

  3. Ajay Jain says:

    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 to do so right away before Supreme Court Justices like Antonin Scalia will vote against the Voting Rights ACT of 1965!

  4. Mark Peterson says:

    Scalia was speaking strictly about section 5 of the voting rights act, which pertains to federal micromanagement of any changes made to state voting procedures in the former Jim Crow states..

    Scalia's point about congress being held hostage by an ignorant populace unable to discern between such archaic oversights, and the voting rights act itself is clearly salient, and even more so that even people who can write, speak, and think clearly such as yourself are still reduced to reactionary outrage , despite clearly having no real understanding of the act, or what is 'activist" or "originalist" vis-a-vis the history of voting law.

    Your reaction to his comments, and indeed the entire low-information hard left bubble, proves the very point Scalia was making… that congress doesn't really want to keep the VRA in its entirety.. but does so anyway because of the ignorance of the population and the ease with which they, especially race-obsessed blacks, are manipulated into a frenzy of false outrage by political opportunists, demagogues, and people who don't want a spotlight shone on voter fraud and other corruption.

    Your argument that section 5 should be extended rather than repealed shows your complete lack of understanding of the 10th amendment in how it relates to Scalia's argument … his argument is essentially that "these restrictions were a temporary entitlement which violate the tenth amendment right of states to legislate and oversee their voting procedures to the extent that they do not violate the bill of rights, and since the compelling need for oversight has passed, those states should have their full tenth amendment rights restored. "

    So you want to violate the 10th amendment rights of all 50 states…and you have the sack to claim that SCALIA is the activist judge… that kind of revisionist use of false hegemonic language might work for the MSNBC, New York Times, Low-Information crowd, but for those of us who still reason our way through difficult legal questions, and understand constitutional law, it's not going to pass muster.

    Actually… I would argue there is a compelling need for federal oversight in the implementation national voter ID requirements… to prevent the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters by illegitimate voters by dilution. But as an originalist, I believe, as Scalia does, that this is properly legislated by the states unto themselves.

    Get a grip brother.

Leave a Reply

Back to top