[cherdano]

 Flem72, on 2016-February-18, 16:11, said:

https://scholar.goog...QIOAIUQgQMIGzAA

Must be missing her keyboard also. Is this good faith journalism?

LOL.

[hrothgar]

I don't think that those links that you are citing are actually related to the point that you are trying to make.

Scalia is making a very specific point: "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

The first article in your google scholar search is a sociology piece.
The second address "The Perpetuation of Subtle Prejudice: Race and Gender Imagery in 1990s Television Advertising"
The third is another sociology piece (hard to tell what it is arguing based on the preview)
The fourth is another piece about South Africa...

[Zelandakh]

 Flem72, on 2016-February-18, 16:11, said:

https://scholar.goog...QIOAIUQgQMIGzAA

Must be missing her keyboard also. Is this good faith journalism?

You should try adding quotes around the phrase before making your point.

[Flem72]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-18, 17:51, said:

You should try adding quotes around the phrase before making your point.

True dat. A lesson in posting whilst running out of the house.

[Flem72]

 hrothgar, on 2016-February-18, 17:07, said:

I don't think that those links that you are citing are actually related to the point that you are trying to make.

Scalia is making a very specific point: "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

The first article in your google scholar search is a sociology piece.
The second address "The Perpetuation of Subtle Prejudice: Race and Gender Imagery in 1990s Television Advertising"
The third is another sociology piece (hard to tell what it is arguing based on the preview)
The fourth is another piece about South Africa...

Again, true dat. Reasonable specificity was absolutely missing from my response....

[Flem72]

 cherdano, on 2016-February-18, 16:42, said:

LOL.

Again with the brilliant, incisive comment.
Unfortunately, I get what I deserve this time.

[hrothgar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-18, 17:51, said:

You should try adding quotes around the phrase before making your point.

If you add the quotes, you get a whole bunch of pieces referencing the Scalia case...

[Flem72]

 hrothgar, on 2016-February-18, 18:30, said:

If you add the quotes, you get a whole bunch of pieces referencing the Scalia case...

A couple of them, some way down the line, state that most veteran SCOTUS observers thought that this was a misfire of typical Scalia humor, that he was referring to a law review comment he had written years earlier in which he created the terminology. Ego trip.

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2016-February-18, 18:30, said:

If you add the quotes, you get a whole bunch of pieces referencing the Scalia case...

That was the point but it seems Flem has delved deeper than me and uncovered what the "written about" piece might have been. Of course Scalia might just have made a mistake or allowed his political views to fudge over the differences enough to equate them in his own mind. Or he might just be racist, as many of his generation were brought up to be. We will probably never know for sure. It would be nice to think that just having this in the public domain would raise awareness and debate in America to reduce racism over time. Sadly the pessimist in me suspects that is probably not the case.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2016-February-18, 20:22, said:

A couple of them, some way down the line, state that most veteran SCOTUS observers thought that this was a misfire of typical Scalia humor, that he was referring to a law review comment he had written years earlier in which he created the terminology. Ego trip.

So, lets get to your original comment:

Quote

Must be missing her keyboard also. Is this good faith journalism?

As far as I can tell, Scalia invented a legal concept (or alternatively joking referenced an obscure comment that he made years previously...

The New York Times reported stated:

Quote

“It’s been written about”? I must have missed that reading assignment.

And you then claim that the Times reporter is not practicing good faith journalism because she claimed that she had never heard of this theory...

Am I correct in my understanding?

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2016-February-18, 13:31, said:

I don't see this as quite on target. It is only a spillover from the mistrust of government insofar as the Court has shown itself to be politically biased in its rulings and actions. Justice Scalia did not help quiet this concern.

Well, she did qualify it with "to some extent".

While there have been a few notably biased rulings, like Citizens United, I think for the most part SCOTUS decisions have been fair, balanced, and in line with public opinion. The exceptions, in concert with the spillover, are then responsible for the split in opinion about the Court.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2016-February-18, 17:07, said:

IScalia is making a very specific point: "Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

Isn't this true about most entitlements, not just racial ones?

For instance, the GOP is dead set against Obamacare, but now that it's in place it will be extremely difficult to get rid of -- at best they might be able to chip away at some provisions that don't affect the majority of people.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-February-19, 11:02, said:

Isn't this true about most entitlements, not just racial ones?

For instance, the GOP is dead set against Obamacare, but now that it's in place it will be extremely difficult to get rid of -- at best they might be able to chip away at some provisions that don't affect the majority of people.

I suppose I can think of a practical difference. Racial entitlements are often justified by making ou for past anti-entitlements. As I recall, Sandra O'Connor view them as something that made sense for 25 years. Whether or not there is any specific time table, often it is assumed that at some point we would reach a point where, in the slogan of 2008, race doesn't matter. No such temporary nature is attached to the ACA.

Not that I particularly want to argue this one way or the other.

[blackshoe]

It would be amusing to see the Republicans refuse to confirm Obama's nomination — of a Conservative.

[cherdano]

You should read the "racial entitlement " quote in context. Much scarier than I realised

http://www.supremeco...ripts/12-96.pdf
Page 46.

[hrothgar]

I just had an extremely amusing idea.

Obama should nominate David Souter...

Souter could serve out for a year, then retire again after the election.

[Winstonm]

 cherdano, on 2016-February-19, 15:00, said:

You should read the "racial entitlement " quote in context. Much scarier than I realised

http://www.supremeco...ripts/12-96.pdf
Page 46.

I'm positive bigotry has been written about.

[Flem72]

 hrothgar, on 2016-February-19, 09:38, said:

Am I correct in my understanding?

I haven't bothered to look up S's law review comment, but as I understand the posts I read, yes, he originated that precise terminology.

My "good faith J" comment, regarding which I believe I have excessively mea culped above, was made based upon a bunch of bolded words in a google search at which I glanced while running out da house. So: NO, I would not now claim that this was bad faith J.

[Flem72]

" You should read the "racial entitlement " quote in context. Much scarier than I realised ."

"I'm positive bigotry has been written about."

One of the reasons for S's comments is the early 2000s case Reno vs. Bossier Parrish. Check it out. In that case, the gerrymandering under review (yes, both sides gerrymander) was a plan adopted by the local authorities who did not select a competing NAACP plan which would have created two big-majority black voting districts is a parish which was, as I recall, less than 25% black by population. It required extreme redrawing of district lines and violated Louisiana state election law. Reno's Justice Dept's position was, essentially, that prevention of VRA, Section 5 retrogression meant the locals had to accept the NAACP's plan because the standard for prevention of retrogression required the redistricting authority to accept the plan that came closest to the ideal for maximizing black voting power. Fair by population statistics and "not retrogressive" wasn't enough.

Was the NAACP's plan bigotry? is this kind of thing a clear example of what we might call not only “perpetuation of racial entitlement” but unconstitutional (Equal Protection Clause? Due Process clause?) enforcement of the VRA?

I have always thought the VRA was necessary for its times, and I can predict answers from individuals here, but I do believe that a law designed to protect and free should not be allowed to become a launching pad for political power grabs.

[Flem72]

 Winstonm, on 2016-February-16, 21:43, said:

If so, we must also accept Scalia's premise that money equals speech, else his free speech argument in Citizen's United fails. Judge Scalia, as is the wont of many, was consistent with his ideology and was not above mentally contorting the meaning of words to make reality appear to fit his faith.

Not sure I follow this logic at all. To what mental contortions do you refer?

1st Amend. freedom of expression is the constitutional "right" most likely to continue to expand: There are indeed many new ways in which "speech" technologically can and culturally may and will (defecating on a flag anyone?) occur, and you left out a lot of steps that were OKed as free speech between drawing a crowd on a 1789 street corner and contributing to an organization that will advance a political point of view.

I do recognize, of course (mild sarcasm alert), that you are objective in this criticism, since conservatives by no means have any advantage in big$ political clout.