Scalia: Women Don't have Constitutional Protection against Discrimination

[RamboLiberal]

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.

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

[arcane1]

1. "judges who have been there too long"

And he's one of them!!

[hlthe2b]

2. I frankly do not think Scalia has constitutional protections against

a really stiff kick in the butt, right off the Supreme Court. The man is a disgusting pig (and I regret the insult that is to porcines).

[aquart]

13. Pigs are useful, intelligent creatures.

Does Scalia fit that description?

[hlthe2b]

15. Already apologized to porcines for the comparison...

Tapeworm might more logically fit the bill, although given his girth, maybe roundworm (Ascaris lumbricoidis -- the giant roundworm of humans) may be more appropriate.

[blondeatlast]

28. Slug slime is my favorite way to term worthless, disgusting... whatevers. nt

[csziggy]

3. The Constitution also does not stop me from thinking that Scalia

Is a useless bag of feces and a waste of air.

With this expressed opinion, he should recuse himself from any case involving any kind of discrimination. But we know his history of not recusing himself from cases in which he has a clear conflict of interest, so that will never happen.

I am getting close to advocating the solution used in "The Pelican Brief" for changing the members of the Supreme Court - but that would be wrong.

[MattBaggins]

4. Do the other Justices do this as much as Fat Tony?

I thought they liked to keep their fat traps shut most of the time so as not to show a potential bias if such cases were to come before them. Why does Scalia feel such disdain for America as he does by flagrantly spouting off so much?

[cali]

11. yeah, quite a few of them do. Breyer does.

[freshwest]

22. And Roberts and Thomas...

[spanone]

5. good god.

[Vickers]

6. I swear, that dude hates everything that is great about the Constitution.

He needs to move to Somalia.

[Occulus]

7. Combine these statements with the readong of the Constitution that's supposed to happen

on Thursday.

Does anyone want to place bets on these words being spoken by Scalia happening today having relevance to the aftermath of the reading on Thursday?

I think we are entering some very, very dangerous terrority here. Note: I just woke up, and meant to write "territory", but left the misspelling in place because it's just so very apt.

Scalia is practically begging the Congress to say the Constitution isn't what it is, says what it doesn't, and doesn't say what it does. I really don't like where this is going at all.

[immoderate]

14. I predict that little theater will not go well.

So many possibilities, including cliques of congressmen to stand around and cheer their favorite freedoms. It will happen once -- like the Republicans debating Obama.

--imm

[Horse with no Name]

46. I just hope Dennis is there with his copy of the Constitution

at the ready to school them on their own edited version.

[freshwest]

16. When the 112th Congress reads the Constitution outloud, they'll go for this!

[blondeatlast]

30. None of this stuff happens by accident. My life would be more restful if I hadn't read

John Dean and David Brock's books, but I wish everyone would share my unease.

None of this is accidental; it only appears that way.

[Lars39]

51. Diebold has the security contract to protect

Constitution, etc. Reassuring, isn't it.

[muntrv]

8. Hey Tony! The founding fathers didn't also envision Italians immigrating to the US.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Don't forget wear funny hats

[marmar]

9. He's a sick bastard.

nt

[niyad]

10. rot in hell, you fat, ignorant, woman-hating bastard

[blondeatlast]

32. Fat Tony is an equal-opportunity hater, He pretty much loathes anyone that

doesn't share his prodigious skin.

[deminks]

12. Supreme Court Justices can be investigated and impeached.

Their crimes are not protected by the constitution or their long robes.

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/2262/justice-alito-attends-fundraiser-violates-us-courts-code-of-conduct

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

[LiberalFighter]

26. If his robes are going to be removed we need to make sure he still has pants on.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. isn't this exactly the argument that led to the Equal Rights Amendment

being proposed?

[freshwest]

21. As far as I know, yes. And it didn't pass because of the rise of the religious right.

I remember the propaganda campaign against it by the GOP. Moderates at the time didn't get through the radical right. It was in the Reagan era. Another reason to despise the man.

'The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress, but failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

This is also why amendments to overturn Citizens United will probably fail, I'm sorry to say. So many people put in years of effort to get the ERA enacted and it failed. And here we are.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. and wasn't one of the arguments against it ....

...."that it was not needed because that protection already existed within the Constitution?".

[blondeatlast]

33. Good catch. IIRC, that was one of the "popular" objections. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

36. and wasn't it the conservatives making this argument?

[blondeatlast]

40. Of course. nt

[freshwest]

41. If that had been the case, it wouldn't have been fought over for almost a century.

Here is a link that shows the long history of the movement. It really set many interests against each other, most with good intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

My recollection of the last drive to get it enacted brought out opposition from the religious right in the 1980s when it was finally given up on. That was also a period when many union people left the Democratic Party to vote for Reagan. They were his first victims.

Part of the reason it couldn't get the support needed was the incredible backlash from conservatives about all the 'rights' that were being demanded and granted in the 1960s and 1970s for:

Blacks, browns, women, gays, natives, children, prisoners, the accused, the farmworkers, immigrants, whistle blowers, dissenters, animals, workers, alternative religions, health care, welfare, clean air and water, heck, the planet itself.

So this one thing, that they could defeat they did. The churches went against it and other rights and became more politicized as they also deified Raygun. IMHO, there were NO valid legal reasons to deny this amendment. If there had been protection for women, would they be fighting for rights still?

One of the arguments put forth by Phyllis Schafly was that it would break up the family and that women would be forced to serve in the armed forces and raped. The lack of the ERA didn't prevent any of those things happening:

When Bush The Elder was in office they shipped off both husbands and wives for Gulf War One and some children actually ended up in child welfare services if the families couldn't take them in. Talk about equal rights, huh?

Even in WW2 they didn't take all of the brothers in a family to make sure the early incident where a family lost their sons in battle wouldn't be repeated. But then, that was with a Democratic POTUS and not a GOP one.

And NOT passing the ERA has spared a lot of female soldiers from being raped, huh?

Okay, I don't have nice memories of Raygun's reign. But the media was intense with all the televangelists ranting against the sanctity of motherhood and being homemakers all that claptrap while they were cutting the wages of the men so both parents had to work. And broke up families. Rant over.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. my point was that this is not a new argument

only that viewpoints have changed concerning it


There was a time when conservatives were arguing that this protection did exist to kill the ERA. Also liberals were affirming this point, or at least saying that it was unclear, to help pass the ERA.

I am pro ERA, I would love to see it reintroduced. Women make up more of the electorate than they did then. It would have a better chance of passing now than it did then.

Expanding civil rights is what Democrats do best (even if it takes way to long). We should continue doing this at every opportunity.

[freshwest]

47. Thanks for your reply to my rant. And I agree Democrats will be the ones.

Civil rights and liberties seem luxuries in this current economic and social climate. It's all been skewed by RW media. It seems to be left to us as individuals to promote equality. Maybe it always was, without laws, just love and respect.

[Motown_Johnny]

48. but expanding civil rights doesn't cost anything (or not much)

They can't attack us for spending money when all we want to do is affirm what most of us already believe exists in the Constitution. Equality for all Americans.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. He needs to tred carefully. I don't see anywhere that it says clearly

that a Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. It has only been interpreted that way.

[Alameda]

37. Oh please, let's impeach him, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

There is plenty of reason. They should never have been Supreme Court Justices anyway. I am sure Thomas lied at his hearings, ugh...that disgusting man. It makes me ill just to look at him after seeing that hearing. None of them are that clean.

[The Backlash Cometh]

39. We can't even get Obama to look into the Bush corruption.

[freshwest]

43. Not with a GOP House of Representatives. But we can still dream...

BTW the way, love your avatar. I worked for Richards election campaign back in the day with my union. Great woman.

[Alameda]

49. Sometimes dreams become reality...dream on.

Thank you for that. I miss her terribly. At least we can see videos of her,and hear her voice. We should never forget the lessons she taught us.

RIP Ann.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

20. Scalia is a few dozen donuts from daisy pushing.

And thanks to the teabagger led revolt of 2010 and the upcoming revulsion of everything republican by voters, fatass is going to croak on Obama's watch, with an even more heavily Democratic Congress - with fewer blue dogs, than ever seen before.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. I am willing to send him a dozen donuts, anyone else?

[blondeatlast]

34. I'll throw in a 1/2 dozen cannolis. nt

[NoGOPZone]

23. "All you need is a legislature and a ballot box."

And a Court willing to allow the votes to be counted, Tony.

[prolesunited]

27. Interesting that this "strict constructionist"

doesn't have any problem with the SCOTUS stepping in to decide a presidential election or recognizing corporations as people. Show me exactly where the Constitution gives SCOTUS this power.

[JoePhilly]

29. Doesn't mention any specific fire arms either .... I say we take ...

This idiot seriously ...

The Constitution does not mention automatic weapons ... and given that, we can ban them. Right???

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. The Constitution doesn't say I can't kick Scalia in the 'nads, either.

[Hawkeye-X]

35. Can someone please begin impeachment proceedings

I don't care who you gotta kiss up Boehner to give up something to begin impeachment proceedings on that fucking a-hole.

[Kablooie]

42. It doesn't say anything about fat little Italian descendants either.

[Ilsa]

44. Mysogynistic fucking bastard. nt

[Tsiyu]

50. It doesn't specifically authorize a War on Drugs either

or Homeland Security

or TSA

or Fat Tony's salary.


Hmmmmm

[Love Bug]

52. Reason #2,342,589 why we still need an Equal Rights Amendment

The ERA was defeated in the 70s due to the fear mongering by the burgeoning religious right. But, we've slipped so far right in the decades since then there is no way it'll happen.

[Motown_Johnny]

53. I would say it is Reason #1

The ambiguity that still exists about all Americans being equal ranks as #1 for me