Joan Walsh on Scalia: 14th Amendment only protects black citizens and a rich white kid named Bush

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011 20:05 ET
Joan Walsh
The Supreme Court's cranky ideologue
Antonin Scalia says the 14th Amendment protects only black citizens, not women. Oh, and a rich white kid named Bush Video
By Joan Walsh

http://www.salon.com/news/the_supreme_court/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2011/01/04/scalia_on_women_and_rights

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia got lots of attention over the last two days for an interview with California Lawyer in which he insists the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, with its promise of "equal protection" for all citizens, doesn't apply to women.

It wouldn't just be women who'd lose their right to equal protection if we took Scalia's view: If we believe the 14th Amendment only existed to give black former slaves as well as free black their full citizenship rights – a long-overdue and worthy goal, by the way -- then it doesn't apply to Jews, Latinos, Asians, or for that matter, black women. I've got to say I'm glad Scalia admits that black men have some rights – I'm a glass half-full kind of person -- but it seems a shame to leave out black women…and the rest of us.

The fundamental problem with Scalia's reasoning -- that "if the current society" thinks women deserve equal protection, we can pass a law to give it to us – is ridiculous. Because what he's also saying is if a future society decided we're not protected, a legislative body could pass a law saying sex discrimination is legal – and women can't appeal to the high court or the Constitution, because the rights guaranteed there don't apply to us.

What's most preposterous is that Scalia was part of the most shameful and flagrantly political use – it was abuse, really -- of the 14th Amendment in Supreme Court history, when he joined the majority in the Bush vs. Gore decision and stopped the Florida recount, brazenly using "equal protection" as one of the cornerstones. The pro-Bush SCOTUS majority argued that the white, wealthy George W. Bush would have his rights violated if if Florida counties used different procedures to recount votes and, in cases of some ballots, divine voter intent. Now, if Scalia really thought the 14th amendment only intended to make former slaves full citizens, he should have applied it to make sure black voters and black votes were treated fairly in Florida (and in fact, we know they were not.) What a joke.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Scalia may be correct as far as the application of the 14th Amendment

and that fact is what's more troubling. What Scalia means is it isn't just women who aren't protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Guantanamo is still open for business with mostly Arabs being held indefinitely, without habeas corpus or remote chance of release.

Koramatsu -- Japanese-Americans and to some degree, German-Americans are held in military-style communities during World War II solely based on their ethnicity and country of origin during a war.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is pulling on the leash to "investigate" anyone whom he deems an "Islamic Terrorist" without any specific criteria. Recipe for mass persecution.

[DCKit]

2. Well stated. Fat Tony's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

He'd have made a hell of a cult leader/preacher, taking Christ out of Christianity the way he takes the law out of the Constitution - and both out of context, except when it suits the needs of the BFEE and corporate Amurka.

[Enthusiast]

3. Scalia is a PIG.

Oink!

[pscot]

4. +1

[Zoeisright]

5. Drop dead, Scalia.

You're a waste of oxygen and water.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. Is there not any behavior for which Scalia (and his toady Thomas)

could be impeached? It couldn't happen during this Congress certainly. But if incidents like this one, his overt bias towards the RW by attending TP-sponsored events, refusal to recuse when he should, etc., continue to cumulate and receive attention, they could at least provide a good basis for an investigation in the next - hopefully Dem-controlled - House.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office

Ah well, one can dream. :evilgrin:

[Marnie]

8. Yes

Scalia announced his decision on Gore v Bush before the court heard the case.
Surely deciding a case before the presentation of facts and the application of the law to those specific facts should lead to an impeachment.


Before the Supremes had even decided if the court had jurisdiction to hear the cse, and arguably they did not, as it was a political, stage level issue, Scalia said the "President Bush's equal protection rights" would be harmed by democracy (ie an accurate vote count as required by Florida law.)

No mention of Gore's equal protection rights, or of Florida voter's, or all American voter's equal protection rights.
To Scalia only Bushies get equal protection from the rest of us.

[Marnie]

7. Excellent point.

There was and is a very good reason that the Equal Rights Amendment (for women) has been being proposed for about 30 years. The Old boys club wants to keep the option of anti female legislation open so they won't vote for it. Which is all the more reason for it to need to be passed.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Amerigo Vespucci.:thumbsup: