|The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965|
by President Lyndon B. Johnson,
a Democrat, who had earlier signed
the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.
The Wall Street Journal reports on Scalia's latest comments, redolent of segregationist-era, southern governors.
Echoing comments he made at oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder (February 2013) challenging the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Scalia called the Act's reauthorizations an "embedded" form of "racial preferment" that Congress and Presidency would vote to maintain unless Scalia and the Court step in.
Preferment is defined by Webster's Dictionary as: An "advancement or promotion in dignity, office, or station."
Scalia, as is his habit, ignores the mountain of evidence that contradicts his la la land.
"Based on 21 hearings, over 90 witnesses, and a fifteen-thousand-page record, in 2006 Congress determined that discrimination against voters of color remains concentrated in covered states, and overwhelmingly renewed Section 5," notes Spencer Overton.
Though many believe that Scalia will vote to overturn the crown jewel of civil rights laws, a rightwing ideologue, Scalia will nevertheless sometimes vote—after making the outlines of arguments not supporting his voiced conclusions—unpredictably.
Don't be surprised if Scalia votes to uphold the Act after having duly offended and shocked civil rights activists, many of whom were killed and beaten after the Movement's direct challenge to the segregation of the American south, where most of jurisdictions covered by the Act are located.
A decision is expected in June.