An Unexpected Passing

TimeWatch Editorial
February 17, 2016

The untimely passing of Judge Antonin Scalia will certainly leave a dark hole not only on the bench of the Supreme Court, but in the community of the truly “conservative” in the land. Why is that? Because there have not been many in public life who would be brave enough to articulate the true feelings that reside in the hearts of so many today, and yet appear to be as cheerful and friendly an individual as he was. Janell Ross, writing in “The Washington Post” on February 14, describes Scalia this way:

“Scalia, the son of an Italian immigrant father and product of a rigorous Jesuit education, will also be described as a testament to the American story. This is what a life can become in a country where equality and opportunity reign and where religious institutions have made meaningful contributions to public life.” Janell Ross, “The Washington Post,” Antonin Scalia: A brilliant legal mind who snubbed civil rights at nearly every turn, February 14.

His openly expressed attitude and convictions concerning civil rights, made those who were accustomed to hide behind coded language happy that they had a champion whose racial separatist positions gave voice to their ominous silence. But perhaps it would be better if you heard how Janell Ross of the Washington Post put it.

“Scalia was a forceful, some might say singularly disdainful, legal force in the war against affirmative action and various civil rights matters. In his years on the nation's highest court, he openly ridiculed claims made by university administrators that building a diverse student body or maintaining student diversity in classrooms  served an educational or greater social purpose.” Janell Ross, “The Washington Post,” Antonin Scalia: A brilliant legal mind who snubbed civil rights at nearly every turn, February 14.

But the timing of Scalia’s departure brings to the forefront one of his most relevant opinions. In the midst of the 2016 primary leading up to the Election of the President of the United States, in fact, as the primary moves to the southern states, the champion of racial exceptionalism departs, as if to cause the nation to once again consider the impact of the recent changes by the “Conservatives” on the court.

“The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States. The act significantly widened the franchise and is considered among the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.” History.com

In spite of the Emancipation Act, former slaves were still considered to be less than citizens by many. The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote.   The Library of Congress.

“In 2013, Scalia described a provision of the Voting Rights Act that gave the federal government the tools and authority to approve almost all changes to voting practices, locations, requirements or procedures in states with a history of voter suppression as a "racial entitlement." According to him, the Voting Rights Act was a misleading name for the law in that it actually delivered and then protected an alleged special set of rights for minority voters.” Janell Ross, “The Washington Post,”Antonin Scalia: A brilliant legal mind who snubbed civil rights at nearly every turn,February 14.

Adam Liptak on June 25, 2013, writing in the New York Times under the topic: “Supreme Court Invalidates Key part of Voting Rights Act” says:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval. Adam Liptak ,“Supreme Court Invalidates Key part of Voting Rights Act,”June 25, 2013

Four other Judges joined Scalia in this decision, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas. Sarah Childress of Frontline wrote this on June 26, 2013 in her article entitled:With Voting Rights Act Out, States Push Voter ID Laws

“Within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the law requiring nine states to submit voting law changes to the federal government for pre-clearance, five* are already moving ahead with voter ID laws, some of which had already been rejected as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.”Sarah Childress of Frontline, June 26, 2013, With Voting Rights Act Out, States Push Voter ID Laws

So who will be brave enough to publicly take his place and voice his opposition to equality in the nation and for that matter the world? We perhaps are already hearing some voices, but none quite as bold and direct. Maybe soon?

Cameron A. Bowen