Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, Says Women Do NOT Have Constitutional Protection!!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Scalia is correct.

The 14th Amendment does not apply to sexual discrimination, nor racial discrimination, nor orientational discrimination, nor age discrimination, nor any other specific form of discrimination. It establishes citizenship for all persons (the last I heard, "person" was non-gender-specific) born in the United States and prohibits any legal discrimination against any citizen intrastate. If any citizen, male, female, otherwise, black, white, purple, green with yellow polka-dots, etc. move from California to Alabama, Alabama must recognize them as a citizen of the United States of America just as California did and cannot deny them the rights which they possess as such a citizen.

Just because pumping the gas pedal in my car does not start the motor, it does not mean the car has no method for me to start the motor. That's why there's a starter key. If I started complaining that my car wouldn't start because I was just pumping the gas pedal, you'd think I was crazy! But it's the same thing as this thread. Just because the 14th Amendment does not specifically apply to gender, it does not follow that such discrimination is legal. Instead, as has already been mentioned several times in this thread, there are laws on the books that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, and these laws, as long as they do not violate the Constitution, constitute the very basis of our legal system.

The Constitution does not establish law; it provides the framework under which law may be established. The Constitution also does not say speeding is illegal; the law does. It does not say rape is illegal; the law does. It does not say fraud is illegal; the law does.

So no, the Constitution does not say gender discrimination is illegal. It doesn't have to; the law does. The Constitution also does not say that gender discrimination must be legal, so the law is therefore Constitutional and valid

Might I suggest actually trying to understand what someone says before slamming them? I'm sure Scalia has plenty of things he has done which are well-worthy of complaint; trying to twist his words just makes those who understand them think you have no idea what's going on.

TheRedneck

Scalia is incorrect. The 14th states "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."

Clearly that applies to women as well as males.

I think you completely missed the point.
Maybe you should read the article again.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Women are not excluded from equal protection under the law, the point is that all people are included without the need to point out some exclusionary characteristic. You were just misunderstanding what he is saying... Probably because you're a girl.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
It's not a living document in the sense that it simply doesnt change meaning over time.

When the 14th Amendment was written, it was to grant and citizenship and protect the rights of slaves (as has been shown). That's what it meant. Today, it means ALL citizens. The meaning changed, while the words did not.

The meaning didn't change, we just all became US Citizens.

Think about it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's just one sexist, homophobic SC judge, not the entire Supreme Court. And Scalia an idiot if he thinks the 14th Amendment doesn't protect women.

Sadly - - the ERA amendment has never been past.

And - two of the Supreme Court judges follow Scalia's lead.

There should be a way to FIRE him for this type behavior. This is not the first time he has made public statements similar to this.

reply to post by Annee


Surely you would agree to fire other justices too correct?

How about morons like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? That moron wouldnt know the Constitution if you rolled it up and beat her with it.

reply to post by Magnum007


What that has to do with my statement, I haven't the foggiest. I suppose it's interesting to be told that women weren't fully considered people til 1985 in Canada, but that really doesn't have any bearing on anything since Scalia is from the U.S.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Annee

 

Surely you would agree to fire other justices too correct?

How about morons like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? That moron wouldnt know the Constitution if you rolled it up and beat her with it.

Is she publicly making statements like this in interviews?

I did not say Scalia was right or wrong. I said he should be fired because of his behavior.

reply to post by Annee


Voicing an opinion is not a termination worthy offense.

Ginsburg does even worse.

Should that creature be fired too?

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Annee

 

Voicing an opinion is not a termination worthy offense.

Ginsburg does even worse.

Should that creature be fired too?

What public statements has Ginsburg made on the same scale as Scalia.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

Was my response that confusing?

The US Constitution does not pertain to the people... it pertains to the government. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the powers of the government. The 14th Amendment is a restriction on the powers of the government (in that case, the States).

We have a document that defines and restricts the Federal government as well as certain powers of the States, called the US Constitution. That Constitution allows for the passage and enforcement of laws which restrict the actions of the citizenry. That means that no law concerning the people is put forth in the Constitution as originally intended.

The 14th Amendment restricts the States from failing to recognize US citizenship granted in another state.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee

I'm a bit confused by your post...

In your opinion, should Scalia be fired because the ERA has not passed (even though the Supreme Court has no bearing on passing Amendments) or because other justices agree with him?

Or it is because he understands Constitutional Law?

TheRedneck

reply to post by Annee


Her acts against the Constitution dont come in the form of statements in an interview, but rather in her rulings as a Supreme Justice.

That is an exponentially worse offense than what Scalia said.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Annee

 

Her acts against the Constitution dont come in the form of statements in an interview, but rather in her rulings as a Supreme Justice.

That is an exponentially worse offense than what Scalia said.

Actual voting? Different issue.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

I'm a bit confused by your post...

In your opinion, should Scalia be fired because the ERA has not passed (even though the Supreme Court has no bearing on passing Amendments) or because other justices agree with him?

Or it is because he understands Constitutional Law?

TheRedneck

NO - and thank you for your very informative post.

I think he unnecessarily insights anger and fuels prejudices in making these type public statements while he is a Supreme Court judge.

It just doesn't seem like ethical behavior to me. Just my opinion.

Its only the behavior I'm questioning.

reply to post by Annee


The only reason his statement could be viewed as inciting anger is because most Americans dont know jack about the Constitution.

That is the problem, not what he said.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Annee

 

The only reason his statement could be viewed as inciting anger is because most Americans dont know jack about the Constitution.

That is the problem, not what he said.

NO. I find him quite arrogant and I think he has intent when he makes these type statements. I don't think it is by accident.

Although - I do agree most Americans don't know jack about the Constitution. I listened to about a 30 minute discussion on the radio today. Pretty much the same varied viewpoints as on this thread.

reply to post by Annee

Well, actually, if you go back to the original interview, which was published in the California Lawyer, a legal magazine, Scalia's comment was (apparently based on context of the OP's source):

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.

Again, according to the source in the OP (which is titled on the site as "Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination"), an editorial opinion piece written by Amanda Terkel, it is Marcia Greenberger, "founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center", who is accusing Scalia of favoring sexual discrimination, when obviously he is not. He is answering a question about the intent and application of the 14th Amendment in the context of a legal journal interview.

Anyone's words can be twisted. Having one's words twisted is not, IMO, a terminal offense.

Well, maybe for the "journalist" doing the twisting...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thank you Redneck.

Facts are always appreciated.

I first heard about this on the radio this morning and they had a long discussion on it.

I honestly don't know more then what was discussed on the radio.

he is also saying that men aren't protected from discrimination, isn't he? what he is saying is that we, as a group could decide that we no longer want to hire freckled red heads for any job, and all the freckled red heads would be stuck in the unemployment lines till our congress go off their duff and passed a law prohibiting the discrimination based on hair color and skin tones...however you want to term freckles!

I am still stuck on the why did he say it???
now and the rest of the women's rights groups are gonna have a fit, and well....
our country has enough on our plates to contend with, with don't need that headache also....

if descrimination isn't unconstitutional, it is still very much illegal, unless they attempt to change the laws, and make it legal again, I think the the women (and men) are safe, at least for now.

just watch, and be ready, in case they do decide to change those laws.....

we, as citizen, be we male or female, do have the equal protection under the law, we do have the rights given under the constitution, the right to property, life, ect. and we have all the protections that are granted to us under the current laws. If they want to change today's status quo, they have to change the laws, through the congress....
the supreme court does not write the laws, they can only decide if those laws violate the constitution...
why he said it?? don't know, either he wants an uproar out of the women' activists, or he is expecting that those laws will be changed in the near future?
or maybe, he is just reminding we the people where the authority of the supreme court ends, and where the authority of the lawmakers begins. trying to avoid a bunch of "oh, it's unconstitution....." gripes and complaints.

there is another alternative, we could move to expand on those rights that are granted through the ammendment process, just to guarentee that they don't start stripping the law so that our rights are stripped down to the bare bones, but, that is a long and difficult process.... and well...considering how things are in our country, I wouldn't go solely for women's rights....I'd be going to preserve EVERYBODY'S RIGHTS!!
If we are a country that is centered on equality, then we all should be able to equally enjoy all the rights granted!