Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I read the article. South Carolina is effectively arguing that since they can discriminate against women, they can discriminate against gays.
If you think I'm wrong, feel free to post something that proves otherwise. Empty claims are just... empty.
You read the article, not the actual brief. I even quoted the brief. They are arguing the 14th amendment is not the right application to determine gay marriage. But hey, since I already posted something that proved you wrong and you doubled down on your incorrect opinions as shaped by this piece of garbage opinion piece, I'm guessing you're not going to take time to read the actual amicus brief, are you?
Many must not have thought women were fully covered by the 14th in the 70's or there would have been no attempt to pass an amendment granting women equal rights. If my memory serves me correctly it came within 2 or3 states of passing.
Scalia was appointed by a REPUBLICAN president. So a vote for any GOP candidate is a vote for the likes of Scalia to be appointed to the court.
Scalia was confirmed by a the U.S. Senate 98-0. That means every Democrat voted for him. That is a pretty bi-partisan vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Rather then just throw stones, why don't you explain the distortion, and link to the context. I for one would be interested in your reply. I truly dislike when people and news do what you describe.
The stones were thrown in the original post. Here is the question and Scalia's exact words.
Quote:
Q: 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?
A: 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.
Scalia is exactly right and his philosophy was the philosophy of the Court pretty much until the Warren Court. You should read the dissents of Hugo Black and Stewart Potter in Griswold v Connecticut. Justice Black was a liberal a man as the court had ever seen, but he understood the proper role of the Court as Scalia does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus
Excellent post and spot on. Scalia is an imbecile, along with his backwards right-wing colleagues. They interpret the words of the Founding Fathers literally....
Scalia graduated summa *** laude from Georgetown where he was also valedictorian and magna *** laude from Harvard law. He is quite brilliant. The hate and venom that drips from the left because he believes that laws should mean what they say, not what someone wishes it to say is as sad as it is perplexing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The problem with Scalia's reasoning is that the legislature is required to comply with the Constitution when it passes laws. That's why laws are subject to Constitutional review. Constitutional review was established with Marbury v Madison, at a time when our Founding Fathers were very much alive and involved. So when the legislature passes a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender, and someone wants to challenge that law, then attorneys on both sides will be arguing the Constitutionality of the law. If a Supreme Court Justice doesn't see any Constitutional defense for the law, on what basis is he going to rule to uphold that law? Read any decision, and the Constitution is cited to defend the decision.
You have judicial review backwards. Legislatures can pass any law they like. It is up to the Court to see if the law violates an explicit right guaranteed in the Constitution. The Court is not supposed to invent rights. If the people feel strongly enough about something that is Constitutional, but distasteful then they must amend the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
That's why it is so important that the 14th Amendment explicity states "citizens". Women are now considered full citizens of the United States. Even if they weren't at the time of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment's language says "citizens". Scalia's reasoning behind his statement is faulty. As a strict Constitutionalist, he should be focused on that word, "citizens", and not who the writers of the 14th Amendment considered to be citizens. The word "citizens" meant "citizens" then, and means "citizens" now. The fact that we've evolved in who we consider to be "citizens" doesn't change the wording of the 14th Amendment. Scalia should recognize that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I don't need to make a law. The Constitution is law. It is the foundation for all American law. And the 14th Amendment accords "citizens" equal protection under the law. "CITIZENS". Women are citizens. Scalia is arguing that the Constitution should be INTERPRETED according to what the writers intended. And frankly, that flies in the face of strict Constitutionalism. That's why Scalia is wrong. The 14th Amendment gives equal protection to "citizens" Women are citizens. Therefore, women are entitled to equal protection under the law. And if you don't believe me, then you should familiarize yourself with the numerous court rulings on women's equality.
Scalia is an originalist on the Constitution. The Constitutional rights and protections can mean no more than the authors understood at the time. If the Constitution needs updating, so be it, but that is for the people to do, not five judges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Got news for you. The Constitution does place laws upon people. 100% freedom is a world ruled by bullies. While those who don't have power or might have no freedom at all. The Constitution is the instrument that balances freedom. We all give up a little freedom in order to maximize freedom for everyone.
You do not understand the Constitution. The ultimate bully is government. The Bill of Rights is to place limits on government and protect the individual.
Many must not have thought women were fully covered by the 14th in the 70's or there would have been no attempt to pass an amendment granting women equal rights. If my memory serves me correctly it came within 2 or3 states of passing.
Why was an amendment needed, to keep governments from discriminating against women voting?
They couldn't do it by statutory law. The Constitution never said, government couldn't discriminate against women's voting, until an amendment. Same can be said and precedent set, for government discriminating against gays.
We can even discriminate against blacks, or whites, or browns, or yellows.... The civil rights act, is not an amendment to the constitution, but merely statutory law, that takes rights of people.
Why was an amendment needed, to keep governments from discriminating against women voting?
They couldn't do it by statutory law. The Constitution never said, government couldn't discriminate against women's voting, until an amendment. Same can be said and precedent set, for government discriminating against gays.
We can even discriminate against blacks, or whites, or browns, or yellows.... The civil rights act, is not an amendment to the constitution, but merely statutory law, that takes rights of people.
Scalia was appointed by a REPUBLICAN president. So a vote for any GOP candidate is a vote for the likes of Scalia to be appointed to the court.
I don't have much use for either of the major political parties or the incessant squabbling that goes on among them. In my view democracy only serves to maintain the status quo, and the current major parties both do exactly that. However I was somewhat astonished by your reasoning. Did you know that former Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter were appointed by Republican presidents? So was current Justice Anthony Kennedy. It would be really interesting to hear your explanation how Stevens and Souter followed Republican principles, and in the case of Kennedy, his opinions are somewhat of a mixed bag. If you cannot do so, then it rather blows out of the water your apparent belief that a president always appoints justices that follow their own political ideology.
Since this thread was such a failure, can we just say that Scalia likes to stomp on puppies. We can't just end this thread without vilifying him after all.
hahahahaha!!!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are arguing the 14th amendment is not the right application to determine gay marriage. But hey, since I already posted something that proved you wrong and you doubled down on your incorrect opinions as shaped by this piece of garbage opinion piece, I'm guessing you're not going to take time to read the actual amicus brief, are you?
