Rachel Maddow Smears ‘Racist’ Scalia

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Some left-wingers can’t handle it when a Supreme Court justice takes on one of their sacred cows, the blatantly racist Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Affective leftist Rachel Maddow flew into a rage of ignorant indignation, blasting Justice Antonin Scalia as a “troll” on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” for criticizing a racist law that she supports precisely because it is racist in means and effect.

The revered federal law uses racist means not only to protect black Americans’ right to vote, but also to guarantee election results. Section 2 of the Act allows congressional district boundaries to be redrawn to protect “majority-minority” districts and to prevent what a congressional research report calls “the submergence of minority voters into the majority, which can deny minority voters the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.” Though they may believe such policies are needed, honest people call such measures racist because they single out Americans for special treatment because of their race.

MSNBC-TV host Maddow, who has a long history of getting basic facts wrong, accused Scalia of racism, claiming he said that “voting is a racial entitlement, something that you are entitled to on the basis of your race.”

“Wait a second. Do you know how that sounds? But I think he does know how that sounds, and that’s the neat thing about being there in person because you can see oh, actually, he’s a troll. He’s saying this for effect.”

Except Scalia didn’t say that. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did — albeit in the form of a question, not an assertion.

During the same oral arguments Scalia attended last week, Sotomayor asked one of the litigators, “Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?” (Section 5 of the Act allows the federal government to closely monitor and regulate elections in jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination.)

A moment later Sotomayor restated a modified version of the question, asking, “Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?”

Scalia, on the other hand, questioned the wisdom of the Act, which allows permanent black districts to be created in order to combat institutional racist discrimination in the South and elsewhere that existed when the law was enacted nearly 50 years ago.

In oral arguments last week in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Scalia said, correctly, that the Act created “racial entitlements.” Under the Act, black Americans are guaranteed sometimes tortuously gerrymandered congressional districts represented by blacks.

“There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now,” Scalia said, stating a fact political scientists consider uncontroversial.

Even though such policies may be unconstitutional because they are based on race and treat states differently, lawmakers keep voting for them because there is no political benefit for a lawmaker to vote against the Act, Scalia explained.

Senators “have no interest in voting against this,” Scalia said. “The state government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

This tendency for such policies to continue indefinitely is “very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

So, contrary to Maddow, Scalia never said the right to vote is a racial entitlement. The fact that certain congressional districts are drawn specifically to guarantee that black people are elected, however, is a racial entitlement, Scalia said, adding that the high court was justified in reviewing the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

Maddow put her other foot in her mouth by calling Scalia racist a second time. Carrying on the “troll” meme, she told Stewart, “So, when we’re all shocked that [Scalia] said something so blatantly racially offensive – we’re talking about the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act – he’s thinking, ‘Oh, yeah, I did. That’s right.’”

This is what political discourse has come to in America. If you point out a law has a racial impact you’re the racist.

The Voting Rights Act was in fact created to fight racism with racist means.

Months after the nation witnessed Alabama state troopers attacking civil rights marchers in Selma in March 1965, Congress approved the law. Lawmakers reasoned it was needed because many state and local officials routinely discriminated against black Americans in the voting process, making it difficult for them to cast their ballots.

Echoing the language of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Act forbade states from enacting any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

Additionally, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which was ratified by the states in January 1964, had given Congress the power to abolish the imposition of poll taxes in federal elections.

In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, finding that Congress had “full remedial powers” to prevent racial discrimination in voting. Following the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, there was “unremitting and ingenious defiance in certain parts of the country,” the court stated. The act constituted a “legitimate response” to the “insidious and pervasive evil” of various policies that had denied black Americans the right to vote since 1870. (Also in 1966, the court struck down state poll taxes in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.)

Section 5 of the statute relegates states and localities to second-class status by presuming they are too corrupt and racist to administer elections fairly. Before the Voting Rights Act, the burden was on victims to challenge discriminatory abuses, but Section 5 shifted the burden of cost and delay to government officials, the possible perpetrators of discrimination.

The section requires state and local governments in certain parts of the nation to get federal approval – called pre-clearance – before implementing any changes they want to make in their voting procedures. Changes can include anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in a county. The way the law is interpreted even lowly bond referendums in affected areas require pre-clearance.

The section requires a state, county, or local government entity to demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question does not have a racially discriminatory purpose and is not “retrogressive,” which means that it will not make minority voters worse off than they were prior to the change.

According to the Department of Justice, the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia are covered by Section 5 of the Act.

In addition to those nine states, Section 5 covers various counties across the nation: four in California; five in Florida; three in New York (all within New York City); 40 in North Carolina; and two in South Dakota. It also covers two townships in Michigan and 10 townships in New Hampshire.

The areas regulated under Section 5 were overwhelmingly Democratic when the law was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on Aug. 6, 1965.

An argument can be made that the law was needed at the time to curb the influence of openly racist Democratic officials on the electoral process.

When LBJ signed the law, racial segregationists, overwhelmingly Democrats, ran most of the states affected by Section 5. Mississippi Gov. Paul B. Johnson Jr. (D), was one of them. Johnson in his stump speeches thought he was witty when he sneered, “You know what the NAACP stands for? Ni–ers, alligators, apes, coons, and possums.”

Other pro-segregation Democratic governors in power at the time were Alabama’s George Wallace and Louisiana’s John McKeithen.

Don’t bother explaining any of this to Rachel Maddow.

She won’t understand any of it, and you’ll just get called a racist.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The racist bugaboo always rears its head, hoping to scare others into silence and submission. Once this is fully understood, then the lessons learned are much easier to implement. Beating back against "Rules for Radicals" becomes easy peasy – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma

    Maddow wouldn't dare tangle with me. She would be mincemeat.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • ripp

      I would like to see you tear up some libs some time.:)

      • ajain31

        All the republicans crapping about Rachel Maddow and libs! The likes of the REPUBLICAN House members should move aside in 2014 because the REPUBLICANS are the crux of the problem. President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind LIKE the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 9th 2013. Vote Democratic always!

    • EarlyBird

      "Maddow wouldn't dare tangle with me. She would be mincemeat."

      Oooh! Watch out for the right wing, racist, homophobic, hysterical, Israel First Jewess! She's got a blog and everything!

      • Lan Astaslem

        and a jerk like you can't stay away!! Jews like Adina really are in control – she even has you spellbound – ha-ha!!

    • ajain31

      Adina K Rachel Maddow provides a very informative, well reasoned and a very logical presentation of facts, figures, charts and conclusions that no logical minded person can escape. Silverio Facundo, you should be thankful that MSNBC has such a voice in its midst and is presented to you every weekday!!

    • Dan Mesa/AZ

      Adina, I long for the day to see you mop up these goofs in the MSM. As far as R.Maddow, you'd make a woman out of that dude.

  • Mary Sue

    Rachel Maddow's an idiot, end of story.

    • EarlyBird

      Gee that was simple, wasn't it Mary Sue?

      • Gee

        Almost as simple as you are. Try finding a brain to use

      • Mary Sue

        It's simple because it is true. She doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.

    • ajain31

      Mary Sue Rachel Maddow provides a very informative, well reasoned and a very logical presentation of facts, figures, charts and conclusions that no logical minded person can escape. Silverio Facundo, you should be thankful that MSNBC has such a voice in its midst and is presented to you every weekday!!

      • JacksonPearson

        Self explanatory:
        M ost
        S tupid
        N ews
        B roadcasting
        C ompany on TV

  • aurea

    The author of this blog post clearly has no education.

    • Demetrius Minneapolis

      Care to explain? Come on, you took the time to write a statement, now explain your opinion – unless you’re one of those mindless Lib-bots.

      • kafir4life

        Really? You expect a dead from the neck up liberal to explain? It's probably already bragging how it took down FPM with its solid logic.

    • Mary Sue

      in what, exactly? And your expert in Constitutional Law is ….(nobody)? I THOUGHT SO!

    • reader

      You mean, public education producing graduates who can't read English reportedly?

    • ajain31

      Aurea Rachel Maddow provides a very informative, well reasoned and a very logical presentation of facts, figures, charts and conclusions that no logical minded person can escape. Silverio Facundo, you should be thankful that MSNBC has such a voice in its midst and is presented to you every weekday!!

    • BS61

      How so Aurea?

  • EthanP

    I assure you she mis understood NOTHING! This is the typical leftist hatemongering.

  • Spider

    I love Rachels Glasses and Butch Haircut. Is all she needs now is a leisure suit and she will look like a cross between Ellen Degenerate and Sally Jessie Rafael.

    • Headed4TheHills

      Spider, ol' chum, Google her name – the pics don't lie – she is the love-child of Ellen and Sally.

  • EarlyBird

    The Voting Rights Act was to secure the AMERICAN right to vote, one which had been systematically and often brutally taken away from black AMERICANS. Since the VRA was consciously designed to solve the problem of Americans from being disenfranchised due to their race, a creep COULD technically, idiotically and shamefully declare it "racist." You must then call the 19th Amendment "sexist."

    But Vadum is simply scum to write this garbage: "The Voting Rights Act was in fact created to fight racism with racist means." Yes, he is a bigot, clearly.

    His real concern is gerrymandered districts that help Democrats. Boy, if he wants to outlaw gerrymandering, he's going to hurt the Republicans a lot worse than the Dems.

    • Spider

      Yeah – how about all the cash and resources systematically taken away from Whites and Asians by socialists / collectivist / Democrats so Blacks don't have to work so hard or work at all for that matter ?
      Gee there is nothing racist about that is there ? How about this law forcing the Gerrymandering of congressional districts so only black Democrats get elected – now there is democracy in action. I guess this is what you call social justice. – Anti White- Anti Asian and Anti democracy. = social Justice Right ?

    • Mary Sue

      *facepalm*
      Way to miss the point, birdbrain.

    • ajain31

      Of all the people on this board I find you "Earl Bird" refreshingly different and very intellectual. Thank you for your refreshingly fair and balanced input.

      All the republicans crapping about Rachel Maddow and the likes of the REPUBLICAN House members should move aside in 2014 because the REPUBLICANS are the crux of the problem.

      President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency.

      We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 9th 2013. Vote Democratic always! Thank you for your time.

  • Horace

    Rachel is existentially destroyed due to her massive failure to support human race survivorship by her gravitational embrace of sodomy, abortion, and socialism. What else do you expect from her.

  • ajain31

    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!

    • Fritz

      Then explain why the New Black Panther Party was not prosecuted for violating the voting rights act in Philadelphia when they posted their thugs around polling stations in 2008 to make sure that everyone voted the right way?
      As usual among lefties your thinking is stuck in one of three decades, the 1930s, the 1960s, or the 1970s. The South isn't anything like it was in the Jim Crow era, there is no government enforced South African style segregation anymore, and the Klan does not hold a position as kingmaker among Southern politicians anymore. Maybe you are one of those that think they should bring back the Civil Aeronautics Board along with wage and price controls and the AT&T monopoly over phone service.

      • ajain31

        The New Black Panther Party is a FOX News propaganda and nothing else. You watch too much FOX NEWS because FOX pictures a black man standing near a polling booth and starts hyperventilating about fraud and election excuses for suppression tactics adopted by Republicans alike. Nobody can ensure how everyone voted leave alone a "black thug" in the form of the New Black Panther Party?

        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.

    • Fritz

      If I understand the definition of the code words "Voter Suppression" you mean election laws that impose criminal penalties against voter fraud. This would include such time tested Democratic Machine tricks as voting more then once, driving around and casting votes at multiple polling stations, dead people voting, children voting, pets voting, and illegal immigrants voting. All things that the now deceased dictator of Venezuela would have supported . Why are you concerned that the next time around the Dem presidential and senate candidates won't be able to slip by with the help from corrupt local governments and public service union apparatchiks?

      • ajain31

        "Voter Fraud" is a full-time propaganda perpetuated by FOX NEWS and by way of statistics and numbers there is no voter fraud in reality if you go by reported and provable fraudulent cases in voting. Our nation is not a third world country where rampant voting fraud can go undetected? Voting more than once is not possible. With voting registrations in ONE place voting in multiple places is NOT possible! Children can not vote as their age will be caught through their IDs. PETS can not VOTE for God's sake! Illegal immigrants can not vote as they have no paper to prove citizenship at the polls!

        President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 9th 2013. Fritz Vote Democratic always!

    • Mary Sue

      it's simple. The Democrat-run counties where voter fraud is rampant imposes a double standard. While Democrat supporters of any color whatsoever are literally voting early and voting often (more than once for something they should ONLY be voting once for), while intimidating voters who do not conform to the party line. To wit, whitey. Is THAT fair?

      We need to get rid of the VRA because the balance of power has already skewed it so far in one direction that getting rid of it will NOT appreciably disenfranchise minorities under any legal definition of the word.

      If you think it's a minority's right and duty to commit voter fraud to "make up" for all the discriminatory practices of the past, you have a very diseased mind. Seek help.

      • ajain31

        Mary Sue early voters vote early so they can register their vote early and do not have ANY ability to vote more than once! Rather by creating voter ID laws, by reducing early voting hours, by reducing early voting days, by creating MORE HURDLES in voting and letting legitimate voters vote Republicans have created more bottlenecks for genuine voters than ANY fraudulent voters per se!

        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.

        President Obama won the elections of 2008 AND 2012 fair and square but the REPUBLICANS are not allowing him to govern through their rule of RECORD number of filibusters in the Senate and the HOUSE of REPUBLICANS has achieved nothing since it came to power in 2010. In 2014 its the REPUBLICAN's time to go and let OBAMA our democratically elected PRESIDENT rule the country and leave a legacy behind like the achievements of the 2008-2010 years when DEMOCRATS had the House Senate and the Presidency. We want the obstructionist REPUBLICANS out of the way in 2014. We want our House and Senate back in the DEMOCRATIC hands so we can govern and achieve something. All these doomsday fiscal deadlines that REPUBLICANS keep pushing on the country will haunt them in 2014!! Mark my words. March 9th 2013. Mary Sue Vote Democratic always!

    • JacksonPearson

      The only voter's rights act needed, are a tamper proof voter ID card. One vote, and NO more.
      Enough BS, is enough PERIOD

  • Silverio Facundo

    The fact that a cow like Madcow can have a program in MSNBC speaks tonns about the overall quality of such MSM outlet. This obnoxious lesbian is the quintessential self-agrandizing, petulant and ill-informed minnow that provides several million viewers their dosage of need-to-know information. And then you wonder why America is where it is today.

    • Fritz

      You are giving her too much credit, the "Angry Young Man" doesn't have an audience approaching anywhere near several million, maybe a few hundred thousand perhaps but not millions.

    • ajain31

      Rachel Maddow provides a very informative, well reasoned and a very logical presentation of facts, figures, charts and conclusions that no logical minded person can escape. Silverio Facundo, you should be thankful that MSNBC has such a voice in its midst and is presented to you every weekday!!

      • Silverio Facundo

        I have nothing to be thankful of, for I haven't watched her programs for several years now. I agree that trolls, minnows and the mentally impaired do need an anchor in their leagues whom to watch. As for me, after I got over the diarrhea that struck me the first time I watched (part) of her program, I decided it was bad for my health. And so should you, before whatever remains of your brain cells gets charred.

  • tagalog

    I believe that not every leftie is an idiot, I really do. Some of them even possess virtue and some of them possess intellectual integrity.

    The problem is that those who purport to speak for lefties in the public square are not only stupid, they're certifiable morons.

    Where are the left-wing Bill Kristols and Charles Krauthammers, the Gelernters and Podhoretzes?

    Nowhere to be found. They're off feeling about things, not thinking about them.

    Any defects in voting, such as invidious discrimination, can surely be sued over using the 14th Amendment. There doesn't really seem to be much of a problem getting rid of Section 5. It's not like we're immediately going to bring back poll taxes and literacy tests. Just show your ID and you vote. Simple as that.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Madcow makes me wax eloquent, I will be brief, she is a puke…………….William

  • Fritz

    The "Angry Young Man" on MSNBC has nothing nice to say about Antonin Scalia and supports mandating gerrymandered districts that favor Leftist race baiters? Why is this anything newsworthy? MSNBC's ratings are almost as bad as Algore's former "Current TV", and the content is about as objective as a TV station in Pyongyang. This is what happens when you hire Leftist mental patients, who failed at everything else in life, and give them their own show.

    • ajain31

      Fritz Rachel Maddow provides a very informative, well reasoned and a very logical presentation of facts, figures, charts and conclusions that no logical minded person can escape. Fritz, you should be thankful that MSNBC has such a voice in its midst and is presented to you every weekday!!

  • joe

    Maddow is hard to watch. You can't hear her over the laughter that breaks out in my entire neighborhood after 5 minutes of her show.
    The only show funnier is Chrissy Mathews but he gets creepy and you expect him to master- bate every time he says Obama.

    Both are very deranged people who barely make a point before launching into fairytale scenarios ,irrelevant analogies and spittle spewing shrieks of "isms".

  • slider 96

    Twist the story -as usual . It wasn't the Supreme Court " Discussion " that was racist . It was Scalia 's particular remark that was .

  • Jim

    She has no respect for her betters.