Justice Scalia
(Image by Public Domain, U.S. Government Photo, Author: Unknown author) Details Source DMCA
In Supreme Court oral arguments this week regarding the Voting Rights Act, Justice Scalia questioned whether the voting rights act might "perpetuate racial entitlement."
First, Scalia reveals a great deal about himself by confusing equal access to voting rights with racial entitlement.
Second, setting aside the dubiousness of his claim, whether a law creates a sense of entitlement is a legislative issue, not judicial. Then again, Scalia fancies himself a one man legislature.
Since when does the Supreme Court invalidate laws because they may or may not perpetuate a sense of entitlement?
Are child endangerment laws unconstitutional because they perpetuate children with a sense of entitlement to safety?
Are minimum wage laws unconstitutional because they perpetuate the laboring class's sense of entitlement to a minimum wage?
Or, taking the current example further, shall we strike all laws that prevent the government from discriminating against race because they perpetuate a racial sense of entitlement to equality before the law?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
