Linda Greenhouse, on Antonin Scalia during the Shelby County v. Holder argument:
“Even the name of it is wonderful: the Voting Rights Act,” Justice Scalia said, his voice dripping with sarcasm as he suggested that only political correctness, rather than a principled commitment to protect the right to vote, had kept the disputed Section 5 of the act alive through four successive Congressional re-enactments. (And, he might have added and no doubt thought, four successive Supreme Court affirmations of the law’s constitutionality.)
Why is Section 5 important? Well, let’s look at what it prevented in 2012:
Last year, Section 5 kept Texas from enforcing what would have been the country’s most stringent voter ID law. At the same time, Section 5 induced South Carolina to make sufficient changes in a proposed voter ID law to satisfy a federal court, an illustration of how the provision has often served as a deterrent to mischief or as negotiating tool to avoid it.
This isn’t the first time Justice Scalia has attacked those fighting for civil rights. Here’s his dissent from 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, a case involving Texas’s anti-sodomy law:
“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
TLDR – In Antonin Scalia’s opinion:
- If you think it’s important to ensure that people have the right to vote, you’re being too politically correct.
- If you think that the government has no damn business in what Americans do in their own bedrooms, you’ve been taken in by the “homosexual agenda.”