Scalia: Constitution Does Not Protect Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (& women)

[WillParkinson]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Constitution Does Not Protect Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Speaking to a San Francisco law school on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee gay people protection against discrimination. And the same goes for women.

"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures," Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians. The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court's conservative wing, is also its most outspoken advocate of "originalism," the doctrine that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of those who drafted it. The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

In the landmark 2003 Supreme Court ruling overturning laws against sodomy, Lawrence vs. Texas, Scalia was the most vehement dissenting vote.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/09/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia.html

[boston bean]

1. This is why the ERA is so important. Will it ever see the light of day?!

then Scalia won't be able to interpret discrimination in the constitution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. It would have to be reintroduced again

and finally ratified.

As to Scalia... he is part of the conservative backlash against modernity. He'd be happiest in 16th century Spain I fear, if not earlier.

[uncommon]

7. I had the same response earlier when someone posted this OP.

Women have NO idea how tenuous our rights are if the wrong people come into power in this country.

[Flubadubya]

2. And being a Supreme Court justice does not guarantee...

exemption from extreme bigotry and homophobia. Scalia - you #1 A-Hole! :puke:

[The Magistrate]

4. 'Scalia Admits 'I Hate Homosexuals!': That Is The Real Headline Here,Sir

What he is saying is he hates homosexuals, and will vote his bigotry into law on any case that comes before a court he sits on.

[uncommon]

26. It reads more as "I Hate Women!"

and thus, "I Hate Non-women Who Remind Me Of Women!"

[babylonsister]

5. Rec'd for a dirtbag who SHOULD NOT be on the SC.

:grr:

I want everyone to know how he really feels. :mad:

[laughingliberal]

6. K & R to expose an unConstitutional bigot.

2 words for Justice Scalia: Ninth Amendment.

[pscot]

8. What a Schmuck!

[muntrv]

9. The founding fathers did not intend for slaves to be freed, douchebag!

[Viking12]

23. True, but the Constitution has been explicitly amended to address that

Don't get me wrong, I think Scalia's wrong here. It's just that your analogy doesn't exactly fit as a refutation of Scalia's point.

[Lyric]

10. So, since he appears to have already made up his mind about "sex discrimination"

I take it that he'll be doing the ethical thing and recusing himself from the Prop 8 case, if and when it makes it to the SCOTUS? After all, it would be highly inappropriate for a justice who's already "decided" the issue without even hearing the case to participate in the ruling.

Right?

...............

Yeah, I doubt it too. Fat Tony is MANY things, but "ethical" ain't one of them.

[EFerrari]

11. Good catch, Lyric. We should save this comment of his

in case we need it later.

Miserable prick. Wasn't he Dead eye Dick's hunting or golfing buddy? Too bad the Constitution can't protect us from HIM.

[Lyric]

12. The Constitution would be great, if only people like Scalia would respect it.

But he's too busy trying to roll back the 19th century to be bothered. I don't know how anyone EVER thought that psycho was worthy of the position he's in.

[dflprincess]

14. "Sex discrimination" - even in Scalia's world

refers to discrimination based on gender, not sexual preference. Though, given Scalia's views toward sexual orientation, he should recuse himself.

[Lyric]

19. The Prop 8 decision was based partly on sex discrimination

not just sexual orientation. It's actually very relevant to the case.

[dflprincess]

24. I did not realize that (obviously). Thanks for the info.

:hi:

[WillParkinson]

15. In my original post...

I was going to ask that he recuse himself from life, but I try to maintain civil posts. (Doesn't mean I wasn't thinking it.)

[myrna minx]

18. Yep - so we already know how he and Thomas will decide.

He has no business being on that bench.

[texastoast]

13. FUCK YOU, SCALIA

You are a hypocritical asshole who should never have ever been appointed.

You are one of the worst justices EVER if justice is to be considered important as part of our nation's culture.

You are AWFUL and not very smart. Your idea of originalism is nothing but advocacy of inequality, which, asshole, was not the INTENT of the founders. Fuck you.

[Pushed To The Left]

16. My number 1 reason to always vote for a Democratic president: Supreme Court nominations

We need to avoid having 9 Scalias on the bench. We already have have 4 and a half. (Kennedy is the swing vote)

[backscatter712]

17. Why is strict constructionism even considered to be a legitimate way to interpret the Constitution?

I'm taking a Constitutional Law class right now, and going into more detail as to the kinds of logical brain damage that occurs when you try to interpret the Constitution strictly according to its text and nothing else.

For example, using strict constructionism, one could say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear nuclear weapons.

The fact that we have FOUR justices in the SCOTUS who interpret the Constitution according to strict constructionism only emphasizes the need to keep Democrats in power, because if we get five strict constructionists, watch our civil liberties go bye-bye.

[BzaDem]

20. Well, strict constructionism often goes hand in hand with originalism

and the original intent of the founders (or the people that ratified the Constitution) was probably not to create an individual right to hold nuclear weapons.

Though you are correct that our civil liberties are hanging by a thread, and if we get 5 originalists/strict-constructionists, they are in deep trouble.

[Hissyspit]

21. He's a pig.

Always has been.

[WillParkinson]

22. Where's the lipstick?

I want to see if the old adage is true. If for no other reason than to annoy him.

[Deep13]

25. Well thanks for prejudging the case, asshole.

Maybe someone should grievance him in his home state.

[Deep13]

27. "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment XIV, sec. 1.

So what part of discrimination based on gender or orientation is "equal protection of the laws?"

[muntrv]

28. Hey Scalia! First show us where in the Constitution does it say corporations are people, douchebag!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. If it weren't for the consequences, I'd agree with him.

I'm not an American, and I don't really understand the reverence that Americans have for their constitution as compared to their current laws, or for their founding fathers (mostly a bunch of genocidal, racist, mysogynistic, homophobic slavedrivers) as compared to their current politicians.

I think that deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution is probably necessary in order to protect America's current liberties from the will of the majority, but I think Scalia is quite right that that's what an approach other than originalism is.

I would be far, far happier with changing the constitution and the laws than I am with misinterpreting them to say what we want them to say.

For one thing, it's a lot safer. Roe vs Wade, for example, is pretty much doomed - take a look at the ages of the current supreme court, and work out how much of the next 20 years the left would have to control the presidency for to avoid an anti-choice majority on the SCOTUS at some point (and all it will take is a year or two of it).