Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

[Galraedia]

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 in 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.

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

[hlthe2b]

1. And there you have it. Those "thoughtful" men and, yes, women, who argued we did not need to pass

the ERA because we were already implicitly covered, this is the result that activist women of my generation (and previous) warned about.

May Scalia and similarly-minded confederates rot in their ugly, misogynistic and narcissistic hell.

And, I might add, to those in the LGBT community who believed women's rights could and should be divorced from attempts to gain gay rights--that they were in no way related struggles, does this convince you NOW? Will you join women in fighting together for equal rights for all?

[Mc Mike]

24. You're right about the need for alliance

between the different key Dem constituencies.

And right about the twisted logic they used to first say 'Women already have equal Constitutional protection', then say 'there's nothing to protect equality for women in a strict interpretation of the Constitution'. Their opponents knew they were lying in the first statement, and knew their goal was to establish the second statement as policy.

[librechik]

35. He's wrong about nobody voting for the issue. They voted it down in 70's

what a shocker.

[ancianita]

40. "They" means men in positions of paying for voting influence and media propaganda voted it down,

along with women who "love to survive," living with what's known as stockholm syndrome. I was there. I saw how that game was won by the team with the most points just stalling with the ball until the clock ran out.

The ERA needs to be revived. This time it would become a Constitutional amendment.

[mythology]

66. It should be redundant

But asshats like Scalia will do everything they can to try to prevent women and minorities and LGBTs from getting equal protection and equal rights.

[Xipe Totec]

2. And yet, when the ERA came up for a vote, they argued it was redundant with the 14th

It's time to amend the constitution.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/history.htm

[DetlefK]

3. Simpler idea:

Streamline the election-process.
1. Abolish the electoral college.
2. All elections held on weekends.

[unblock]

4. better yet, all elections held over a period of several days, and including mail-ins.

anyone could be working or ill on any one day. allowing only one day is pretty lame when you get to vote for president only once every four years. bedridden that day? too bad, wait four years.

[jeff47]

23. Make it both days on a weekend, and require employers to

give one of the two days off. So employee A can work Saturday but not Sunday, and employee B can work Sunday but not Saturday.

And massively-expand mail-in voting.

[KansDem]

6. 3. Paper ballots, or at least electronic voting machines overseen by the federal or state government

No more corporate-owned electronic voting machines with secret, proprietary software programs.

[eShirl]

21. they also agued it would (gasp) apply to gays

boo!

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Agree. n/t

[Frosty1]

55. +100 Sneaky bastards aren't they?

[davidn3600]

56. That's not the real reason ERA failed

It was nearly passed until people like Phyllis Schlafly started screaming garbage about how everyone's daughters will be drafted and send to die in the next Vietnam and how we'd eventually end up with unisex bathrooms.

[Xipe Totec]

57. Yes, because there can only be one reason for everything. nt

[Brigid]

5. Go home, Tony.

You're drunk.

[RobinA]

7. Call Me Dense

but I'm missing his point. By his logic, we don't even need a 14th Amendment. Or a Constitution, for that matter, and by extension a Supreme Court. He should really resign, as his job is superfluous. The law is whatever Congress says it is.

Why do they call this man brilliant?

[WinkyDink]

11. I think he means that anything "the current society" wants as legal, if not SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED

in the Constitution, needs be addressed by Congress, federal or state.

Scalia, in essence, would regard the Constitution as a frozen document, applicable only to the late 18th C. society.

[WinkyDink]

8. Didn't stop him from going against the LAW, specifically the ACA, even though the Constitution "does

not require discrimination on the basis of sex."

[Volaris]

9. "..persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law."

We DID THAT, Anotnin. It's called the Affordable Care Act, and it came complete with a CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE.

I think I need an aspirin.

[deurbano]

20. Exactly.

[davekriss]

37. ...and We the People passed a law with Medicaid expansion

Funny how that "we" keeps moving around in Scalia's arguments - it means whatever he needs it to mean to justify his personal prejudices.

[myrna minx]

10. It's unbelieveable and disturbing that he's affored the power he has.

History will be unforgiving to Scalia and the Roberts runaway activist court.

[PatSeg]

32. I can't imagine how someone like him

became a judge of any kind, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.

[3catwoman3]

34. I am going to start calling them...

...the Supreme Court Injustices.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. He is an originalist.

This is a perfect example of the danger of the Federalist law movement. >

[DirkGently]

13. Scalia is happiest talking out of both sides of his mouth.

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.

His "strict construction" here would require believing that women are not "persons."

But corporations, of course, are.

[davekriss]

38. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic

We live in such sad times.

[DirkGently]

59. Possibly we're just noticing more?

The screwing with people has probably been going on forever.

The Supreme Court becoming an instrument of money-over-people is especially galling though. I kind of came up revering the Brown Court and all of the good, courageous decisions on equal protection and civil rights and free speech.

Now we have these smirking punks giving Tea Party lectures on the side and telling us racial discrimination is over and billionaires expect no "quid pro quo" for unlimited cash. And corporations have "religious freedom," just especially for messing with women. Because, you know, sex stuff.

Alright now I'm with you again. Bad times. Little light here and there, but there is a lot of ugly right now.

[TeamPooka]

14. Scalia proves that not all humans have humanity. nt

[valerief]

15. Per this logic, 2nd amendment should only apply to muskets, right?

Re semi-automatics

Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.

[3catwoman3]

36. Sounds good to me.

The gun aficionados can have all the muskets their little hearts desire.

[valerief]

16. Why does the world allow him to breathe? nt

[ReRe]

19. Unfortunately...

... only the good die young. The evil SOBs live to a ripe old age and make life miserable for everyone they come in contact with.

[FiveGoodMen]

48. Indeed!

[Boomerproud]

17. Nothing that comes out of Scalia's mouth surprises me anymore.

He's a joke of a jurist and a joke of a human being.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. It's your own fault for chosing to be a woman.

[riqster]

22. There is why we have to keep the Senate and the White House.

[efilon]

26. John Prine says it all.

John Prine- Some humans ain't human.

[mountain grammy]

27. He's said this before.. such a deep seated hatred of women these conservatives have.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. He just BLEW 40 years of Right Wing claims about the ERA....

They have been saying it is "unnecessary" because women were already covered under the "citizen" line of the Constitution.

Thanks Scalia. You and your big mouth just boosted passage of the ERA anew.

[muntrv]

29. Once again, if we went by "original intent" Clarence Thomas would be a slave.

[SwankyXomb]

44. Or at least be limited to 3/5 of a vote. n/t

[HockeyMom]

30. Only White, Christian, Straight MALES

have the right to not be discriminated against. The message behind his statement, and rulings.

[onenote]

31. This reading, of course, is inconsistent with his own "textualist" approach

Here is the relevant Constitutional provision (14th Amendment) that guarantees "equal protection):

14th Amendment --Section 1.

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.

Note the use of the word "person". Not "male" person. Not "man". Not "person with a penis". "Persons." So to be consistent, Fat Tony would have to conclude "persons" as used in the first sentence of this provision only applies to men and that women are not citizens of the United States. I should add that the drafters of the 14th Amendment knew how to distinguish between male and female persons when they wanted to do so. The second section of the amendment specfically refers to "male inhabitants" and "male citizens". But if persons refers exclusively to males and thus only males are citizens, the reference to "male citizens" would be redundant.

Fat Tony gets an F-.

[green917]

33. Orwell had it right

"All animals are equal but, some animals are more equal than others"

[Wolf Frankula]

39. Because Women Aren't Persons

According to the SC 5, only corporations and straight white men over the age of twenty-one who possess more than four hundred thousands of property are persons.

Wolf

[3catwoman3]

41. Injustice Scalia's...

...heart attack is long overdue. He would benefit from a food stamp diet.

[OldRedneck]

42. So . . . according to Scalia, women have only two rights:

1. The right to be pregnant.

2. The right to bring me another cold beer . . . and be quick about it!!!

[perdita9]

45. Scalia needs to be removed from the bench immediately...

...and bitch slapped by every woman who works in the US court system

[perdita9]

43. So I don't get protection but I have to pay the same tax rate as a man

Who the hell approved this guy's nomination to the Supreme Court?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. Dude, keep it up. You are going to need a bigger buffer zone.

[Initech]

47. Scalia is my definition of conservatism exactly.

And my definition of modern conservatism is a "glorious lack of empathy". Asshole.

[Javaman]

49. I think he needs to be tested for dementia.

I'm very serious about that.

[Brigid]

60. I know you're serious.

I think Scalia needs to be tested too.

[ColesCountyDem]

50. The man is a sociopath, plain and simple. n/t

[TheNutcracker]

51. That's why we've been fighting for the ERA! Only three more states needed and it's in!

But it IS the right to work states left. They are afraid of lawsuits over discrimination over hiring and pay. Five states have been mentored while needing only three. Bills every year in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. There are other states but a waste of time. It's IS hard to believe that IL is one of them....

Look at the map. They keep telling those working on the ERA that women are in the constitution. We have to point out that is not what the 14th amendment says.

So it's GREAT to hear this bum say this! Ahhh ha! We knew it was true.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/states.htm

[BrotherIvan]

64. Very interesting!

I hope some of those states turn blue and pass it! Thanks for sharing the info as I did not know it was so close.

[JDPriestly]

52. Let's bring back the campaign for the ERA if that is what these lunatic conservatives want.

I'm all for it.

Let's pass an Equal Rights Amendment. Make the Republicans face the millions of women in the US. Let the


U.S. Constitution › 14th Amendment
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

We women who are citizens are just as protected by the 14th Amendment as are men.

Men are no more protected against discrimination than are women. In other words, so that everyone understands me, there is no more specific protection against discrimination for men in the Constitution than there is for women. It isn't considered necessary.

California protects everyone from discrimination based on gender. That's the way our federal Constitution should read. No one should be subject to discrimination based on gender. And yes, I have seen cases or situations in which men were discriminated against based on gender.

Men used to be very rare in the nursing profession, for example. And even today, some employers may hesitate to hire men for certain workplaces based on their gender or treat men differently in the workplace based on gender.

The government may not discriminate against us based on our gender under the 14th Amendment.

Republicans tell us women that we are only second-class citizens. But in fact, we have the same rights as men under the Constitution.

[libnnc]

62. THIS ^^^^^^^

Let's pass the ERA once and for fucking all.

Bring it.

[Dawson Leery]

53. That would explain the treatment Fat Tony's cult gave Savita Halappanavar.

We need the ERA(equal rights amendment).

[Personal Damon]

54. Ah, yes, Scalia

Your real Chief Justice for well over a decade.

[SummerSnow]

58. Scablia...and that's not a misspelling.

He's a scab to society. Women we must unite.All we fought for they are trying to take away.Fight these assholes.

[Cha]

61. Thanks Galraedia

[Art_from_Ark]

63. Everyone knows that the Equal Protection Clause

is just a one-time deal that applied only to one party in a disputed presidential election, right?

[TBF]

65. He's right - and that's why it was so important

to pass the ERA.

And still we wait.