Skip to main content

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.

The question posed to Scalia:

"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?"

Scalia:
quote:
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.


Of course Scalia must be aware that in 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they(womens equal rights)were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger.

I see this as a great idea. Gets all the women off the unemployment dole, and back in the kitchen were they belong.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
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.

The question posed to Scalia:

"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?"

Scalia:
quote:
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.


Of course Scalia must be aware that in 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they(womens equal rights)were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger.

I see this as a great idea. Gets all the women off the unemployment dole, and back in the kitchen were they belong.


Why? Can't you cook or take care of yourself?
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Of course Scalia must be aware that in 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they(womens equal rights)were protected.


So what? The SCOTUS in 1857 also ruled that blacks/slaves were not citizens.

The justices are not mystical wise men...they are unelected, unaccountable, politically connected lawyers.


quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
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.


I don't know if strict constructionist would be an accurate term for him--or any other memeber of the Supreme Court. But he is right to a degree. The 14th Amendment was intended soley to "constitutionalize" the 1866 Civil Rights Act, giving blacks the basic rights of citizenship--right to own land, right to enforce contract, etc...(I guess I should say ENSURE that their rights were protected, neither the Constitution or the government GIVES us rights, we have them naturally)

The 14th Amendment was intended to give POLITICAL protection, not SOCIAL protection.

Using what’s called the “incorporation doctrine,” the Supreme Court has used this to grant legislative powers to judges...which itself is unconstitutional. That power exclusively is given to congress. The theory of incorporation was not even invented until about 50 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified.

What magical or divine interpretation did these latter day Supreme Court justices recieve that the SCOTUS of the late 19th and early 20th century didn't have?

None. It's a total innovation.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×