14th Amendment Doesn't Protect Women Against Discrimination
Jillian Rayfield | January 4, 2011, 3:23PM
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in an interview released this week that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect against discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.The following exchange appears in the January 2011 issue of California Lawyer Magazine:
[Question:]In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
[Scalia:] Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
In the interview, Scalia also weighs in on New York City pizza: "I think it is infinitely better than Washington pizza, and infinitely better than Chicago pizza. You know these deep-dish pizzas--it's not pizza. It's very good, but ... call it tomato pie or something. ... I'm a traditionalist, what can I tell you?"
Comments
- four legs good4 HOURS AGOYeah, he's a "traditionalist" all right. How about if we launch his fat ass back into the middle ages where he belongs? What part of "equal protection under the law" does he not get? It's not so much that society has changed (which is true enough) it's that America was wrong to allow discrimination in the past, whether they thought it was right or not. And sure, states can pass laws, but the constitution is there to stop them from passing laws the abridge citizen's rights.
The day this troglodyte either retires or drops dead and leaves the court will be a happy one. He has no business being on the court with these views. 
ADad2 HOURS AGOScalia is smart, but he has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old boy. With three adult women on the court who are--at minimum--his intellectual equal, he clearly feels threatened, so he's lashing out with childishly provocative remarks directed at, guess who? For Scalia, Originalism isn't a judicial philosophy--it's an excuse to indulge his personal prejudices without restraint.
AJM31 HOUR AGOBy Scalia's reckoning, the 2nd Amendment would be limited to blunderbusses since more modern weapons had occurred to no one.
Also he needs to overturn the doctrine of plain meaning which undoubtedly goes back much further than the case cited by Wiki:
names. Plain Meaning When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), reasoning "[i]t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion."
He may think that the 14th Amendment was written too broadly but this is what it says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So why does he find it so difficult to recognize that women are persons and citizens of the United States?
HumanResources48 MINUTES AGO"By Scalia's reckoning, the 2nd Amendment would be limited to blunderbusses"
Exactly - by his simplistic reckoning that he doesn't even believe, The Constitution is essentially a dead document. If it lacks such fundamental interpretive flexibility, it is useless. But he will make a different argument as soon as it pleases his whims and ideology. It's really embarrassing for the US and damning for our most sacred institutions - of which SCOTUS certainly is - when individuals in such high positions spout this kind of crap. It is a perfectly valid point that we should be very careful in over-interpreting and over-extending the original meaning of The Constitution, but there's room for thin crust and deep dish pizzas on the menu.- glblank20 MINUTES AGOThat about sums him up. What the greasy little fuck doesn't say is that women had no rights at the time and it's application was moot, so semantically he is accurate,. no one considered the issue in 1868 , except for Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony but what the jackass neglects is that women fell under the protections of the 14th after they were given the franchise. Skankliar wants to narrow one amendment but by his own logic, the second amendment should only cover muzzle loading weapons and conceal-carry is unconstitutional.
- DICKERSON38701 HOUR AGORE - "Scalia: 14th Amendment Doesn't Protect Women Against Discrimination"
MY COMMENT: It is absurd to maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment does not encompass gender!
James Brown & Luciano Pavarotti - "It's a Man's World" (VIDEO, 05:29) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ATTACHED FILES
MTinMO1 HOUR AGOWhile it may have no force behind it- I would sure love to see a petition drive to demand that Scalia honor the United States and resign his seat. He is not worthy of the court and has helped to create a serious doubt in the competence of the court. That is a huge problem when the citizenry doesn't believe in the decisions of the Supreme Court. He is one of the biggest problems and doesn't belong there.- jtoomey1 HOUR AGOGoing strictly by the verbiage of the 14th Amendment, there is indeed nothing that *specifically* states females are protected from discrimination.....but the writers (probably) thoughtfully left more than sufficient wiggle room there to allow for more specific interpretations over time.
---which allowed for the later drafting and acceptance of the 19th Amendment, specifically assigning the right to vote to Women.
By answering the way he did, Scalia either was carefully noncommittal, or showing a glimpse of his (lack of) character...take your pick. Personally I wonder if his wife is only permitted to wear clothes when guests visit, and other times should be barefoot and in the kitchen with the household help.... He really needs to wake up and see that it's not 1876 any more.... 
rogu3ish1 HOUR AGO"That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society."
It's unfortunate that a member of the Supreme Court has such a low view of the institution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be our last line of defense against a reactionary legislature and/or executive that would seek to violate the people's rights granted under the constitution.- hgorwellian1 HOUR AGOScalia's intent argument has a surface appeal to many conservatives, but its a very simplistic (wrong) position on a complex problem. when the 14th amendment says no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" there's nothing in that plain language that says "but not teh gheys!!" or women or italian immigrants like scalia's ancestors or whoever. we don't need to impose the prejudices of our forbears to the language they chose that doesn't include those prejudices. what makes the United States special was and is its aspiration to be more than it is and better than it is and to lift up all to be free citizens. what scalia wants to do is freeze america where it was in some distant past, which is not what america has ever been about. american is not about touring 12th century churches it is about the future.
- PASC1 HOUR AGO"You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. "
ARE YOU LISTENING, IGNORANT TEA PARTIERS????????????? - fnacalgal57 MINUTES AGOSorry to say, but a lot of constitutional scholars will agree with him. Many, if not most, of you are too young to remember the fight to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s, shot down just short of 3/4 of the states by that paragon of stay-at-home motherhood Phyllis Schafly. I'll hate her to my bones until I die. I'd love to be religious so I could picture her burning in hell for eternity, but unfortunately I don't believe in hell, except for the one created here by greedy hypocrites like her.
No comments:
Post a Comment