Antonin Scalia - you WILL rot in hell. Sincerely everyone else not an asshole white male!

[LynneSin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly-published interview with the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

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?
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.

[gratuitous]

1. Which means . . .

That a constitutional review of a law that does indeed rely on the 14th Amendment to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation must remain silent on the basis of the law, but must apply the law as written. Such laws are constitutional on their face, if I'm reading Fat Tony correctly, though I have some doubt he'd draw the same conclusion from his demented little screed. He's a great little mind-reader, Mr. Scalia is. He knows everyone's intent at all times and in all circumstances, and he knows in his black old heart that the 14th Amendment means only what he thinks it means, today, tomorrow and forever.

[Igel]

25. He says as much.

It's not that the Constitution specifically extends protection; it is merely mute on the point.

One has to wonder, though, what the Constitutional basis of laws outlawing sex discrimination would be. Legislative leveraging of due process? Or would they have to be state laws?

Most people only know what they and others think the 14th Amendment means. The entire debate is concerning reasonable constraints on what the possible meanings are. There can be limits based on "original intent", i.e., what the legislature intended it to mean; there can be limits based on historical interpretation, i.e., what the courts and public opinion understood the law to mean in the period immediately following its enactment with no further expansions allowed; there can be limits based entirely on what the courts have decided it means, so once they decide until SCOTUS redecides it that's sacred writ (with the usual outrage and celebration when SCOTUS rejects stare decisis for some reason); there can be limits based upon what the public current wants a text to mean or what the public will tolerate being told it means; there can be limits based entirely on human imagination.

The first requires frequent rewrites or oddball exemptions. The last renders the text all but meaningless. Scalia is closer to the first, without actually adopting that view.

[Parche]

2. what a fat dooshbag

so there....:hug: :hi:

[badtoworse]

24. I believe douche bag is correct.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. I. Knew. it.

These people want to go back to the era of slavery.

That man doesn't know the first thing about democracy.

[pacalo]

4. That he's a SC justice re-interpretating discrimination law should give us

an indication of what to expect when the R-majority House decides to apply the "constitution-as-nutjobs-interpret-it" to any bill that is introduced.

What a freakin' mess.

[me b zola]

5. Funny, when I read the Constitution I can't find anywhere in it

where it gives the Supreme Court the right to stop an election and appoint a president.

[anamandujano]

10. They did say that it was a unique incident and not to consider

it for use in the future. I can't remember the legal term that means when something is ruled on, it then becomes some sort of pattern that another case can quote.

Don't you just love 'em.

[me b zola]

20. Forgive my awful spelling

Starry discisis I believe is what you were referring to. And yeah, I still think that everyone who voted for that should be removed from the SC.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Fat Tony is a corrupt piece of shit

Each and every time this douchebag comments on anything related to the law, he should be asked about his lawless actions in Bush v. Gore.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I figured out a major flaw in his reasoning.

The reason we didn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment was because everyone who opposed said that it was already covered by the Constitution. If they believed that back then, why doesn't fat Tony believe it now?

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Where, exactly, does it say that a Supreme Court judge is a lifetime appointment?

Is it straight out of the Constitution?

[slackmaster]

9. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Where, exactly, does it say they have a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?

If it was on the link you gave me, I couldn't find it.

[slackmaster]

14. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour

They can resign, they can die, and they can be impeached but that clause means their terms are for life.

The first sections of Articles I and II explicitly specify terms, in years, for the President and members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. How do you know that's what it means?

It doesn't read that way to me. If I were a strict constructionist, I would assume that good behaviour means good behaviour and Scalia has already abused the spirit of that since he has a god complex. Besides, I don't think the founding fathers would approve of Scalia because he's not of Anglo descent. And Christ! He's not even Protestant!

[slackmaster]

27. English is my first language

It seems clear to me, especially in the context of two other Articles that explicitly specify terms of office. If the intent of the authors of the Constitution was to have a limited term, or one decided by some particular formal process, they would have put that in the Constitution. In the absence of either some kind of specific time limit or a process by which term limits are decided, the wording clearly indicates a lifetime appointment in my opinion.

If I were a strict constructionist, I would assume that good behaviour means good behaviour and Scalia has already abused the spirit of that since he has a god complex.

The proper remedy for that would be impeachment. I believe mental incompetence (i.e. insanity) is a valid reason to impeach a Justice.

I don't think the founding fathers would approve of Scalia because he's not of Anglo descent.

I'm sorry you have such a jaundiced opinion of them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. If English is your first language then you know that good behaviour

does not automatically mean a lifetime appointment. And if it did, a lifetime back when this was drafted would have been no more than fifty years. A strict constructionist, you're not.

[slackmaster]

29. I didn't say that good behavior automatically meant a lifetime appointment

RIF

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. That's what I'm looking for. Something clear as crystal.

Something that a strict constructionist couldn't deconstruct. And it does not say in the Constitution that Supreme Court Justices can serve for a lifetime. So Scalia is going to get bitten by his own devious motivations.

[slackmaster]

32. I suggest you read some background material on the intended role of the federal judiciary

It's abundantly clear to me that the intent was to have the judiciary as independent as possible from the political pressures that would have resulted from them serving at the pleasure of the Executive or Legislative branches. A President can fire a cabinet member at any time for any reason. Congress can pass whatever laws it can agree upon, but they can be vetoed by the President or challenged in the courts. Congress can override a Presidential veto, or initiate an amendment to the Constitution. The President has the power to alter the structure of the Supreme Court by adding justices. It's like a big game or Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Try Federalist papers 47, and 78-83.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfedindex.htm

And it does not say in the Constitution that Supreme Court Justices can serve for a lifetime.

That's true, but it doesn't say that federal judges CAN'T serve for a lifetime, whereas it very specifically provides limited terms for offices in the other two branches. It does allow for federal judges to be removed by impeachment.

One of the cornerstones of our entire legal system is that everything that isn't explicitly prohibited is allowed. By not specifying a limited term for federal judges and justices, it provides lifelong terms.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Keep it coming. Just address your arguments to Scalia.

The point is, that at some point judges have to respect decisions made by their predecessors. Strict Constructionists don't do this. That's why they're so appealing to the right-wing, that wants to take this country by whatever coup method they can get away with.

[provis99]

21. the Supreme Court decided that it meant lifetime appointments.

Just like it was the Supreme Court that gave itself the power to rule laws unconstitutional, though that power is nowhere in the Constitution. See how things work?

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Now THAT's what I'm talking about.

That's what needs to be thrown in Scalia's face. I think he's trying to stir the shit when he talks about going back to the Constitution because this only feeds the right-wingers. It gives them hope that they can push us back to the stone age. All they have to do is put the right judges in place.

Except, we go back to Scalia's dictum. If he questions the things that he doesn't like, he will also have to question the things that he's benefiting from.

[slackmaster]

33. Be careful what you wish for, TBC

Earl Warren lifetime appointment GOOD.

Antonin Scalia lifetime appointment BAD.

Democrats in majority in Senate, 60-vote cloture rule BAD.

Democrats in minority in Senate, 60-vote cloture rule GOOD.

This SC is not going to fix the problem of institutionalized discrimination against women, so it's left to Congress to update the Civil Rights Act. Or you can move to a state like mine where the state has exercised its power to do so.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. I'm not wishing for it at all.

I'm just showing the flaw in the thinking of strict constructionist. It's like a Jenga game. You start at the bottom, they all fall. They should be called deconstructionists.

[niyad]

11. go to hell, tony, and take your woman-hating ideas with you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Now we know that angry white men are misogynists as well as

socio-paths.

[Botany]

15. This from the man that ruled that the plaintiff ran significant chance of ...

.... embarrassment if the Florida recount would be allowed to continue and of
course the plaintiff was George W Bush.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. There is no hell.

We punish him now, or he gets away with everything.

[Lucian]

18. Why don't he just do the country a favor and have a massive heart attack already?

[DavidDvorkin]

19. Hell is a revenge fantasy

Sadly in this case, it's just a fantasy.

[sakabatou]

22. Where's my clue-by-four?

[davidwparker]

23. Nadar had a recent, great expression on Lawrence's show:

"Let them show their fangs."

Having the House loss may be a good thing. Let American be re-re-re-re-reminded about what happens when (R)'s come to power. They are like that Navy Capt, Honors, who is sitting out the next deployment of the ship he will no longer command again. They just cannot hide what they are.

Give them some rope ....

[Kweli4Real]

26. Wait a minute ...

So if I understand his argument correctly, he is saying there is no constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment for anything not explicitly discussed/debated by the enacting congress ...

So that would mean there is no right to privacy since it is only found in the penumbras of the 4th amendment.

See that's the problem with scalias' approach to the constitutional interpretation ... it can never be consistent because it is wholly results oriented.

[StarburstClock]

36. I get what you're trying to say but...

Just replace "white" with anything else in the title and you would sound like a raging bigot. Are all "white males" "assholes" to you? As a "white male" it's a pretty offensive statement and it's offensive that I'm grouped into a category with a corrupt judge. For example: "asshole white female", "asshole black male".

Scalia's a bigoted crook in a job he shouldn't have.

[LynneSin]

37. I use that term to define that not all white males are assholes

however there are those that are and clearly Scalia is one of them.

[spooky3]

38. Stephen Colbert showed how ludicrous Scalia's misinterpretation is...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x116482