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?