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.
It is Scalia, he would rule that an African-American owned corporation was only 2/3 of a person. In his view, only straight, white male Christians deserve full personhood and protection of the law, just like the founding fathers intended.
This here is a great example of what the Republican Party stands for these days. According to our loud and proud Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it's just fine and dandy for the government to pass laws discriminating against women. I can't say I'm surprised considering that this is a party that wants to force women to receive invasive and unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds. Considering that LEADERS in this party have openly questioned womens' right to access birth control- while Viagra is covered by their own medical plans. Considering that Republicans have ADMITTEDLY done everything in their power to keep American citizens who they don't like from voting.
There are several reasons why I'll vote for Hillary. But THE single most compelling reason for me is that we can't allow the GOP to appoint more guys like Scalia. They're making every effort to drag us back into the 19th century. I don't agree with the Democrats on everything, but I will NOT support the GOP's repeated attempts to maintain, defend, and even reinstate discrimination.
Dear turkey-head,
1) You can't believe the slant huffpost puts on things. Do your own thinking and read with comprehension. Did you really understand what you read? Or are you trying to use it as a launch pad to support your own views?
2) I don't think you fully understand the issues you name
3) A link to your claim about "vaginal ultrasounds" please.
Scalia himself states: 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.
That does not mean he's in favor of discrimination. It does mean he's a very discriminating judge.
There's a difference.
Dear turkey-head,
1) You can't believe the slant huffpost puts on things. Do your own thinking and read with comprehension. Did you really understand what you read? Or are you trying to use it as a launch pad to support your own views?
2) I don't think you fully understand the issues you name
3) A link to your claim about "vaginal ultrasounds" please.
Scalia himself states: 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.
That does not mean he's in favor of discrimination. It does mean he's a very discriminating judge.
There's a difference.
Get out of here with your facts, the democrats have a narrative to paint to get hillary elected and you are standing in the way.
Scalia made his comments in 2011 and I notice you've coveniently distorted the context, if you understood it at all. But this kind of ignorant bs is all we're going to hear from the left for the next two years in an effort to promote the gender wars.
Can you explain the context and meaning of the statement? I'd like to see some light shed on this as well.
Can you explain the context and meaning of the statement? I'd like to see some light shed on this as well.
What Scalia said was that at the time of ratification, the ONLY thing this amendment was about was blacks. Not women, not gays and not transgenders. He is factually correct. He is also correct about legislatures writing laws to deal with these things.
Scalia himself states: 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.
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.
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.
I think, instead, that the language of the 14th Amendment specifies "citizens", according all citizens equal protection under the law, and since we freely assign citizen status to both women and to gay people, that the 14th Amendment and the Constitution does prohibit such discrimination. Because as a nation we've changed our thinking about who our citizens are.
Citizen status was defined in the 14th
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. The definition of person is still the same today as it was when the 14th was ratified.
The thing is it depends on who is doing the discrimination, and what is meant by protection.
In most cases the discrimination that is being discussed is not the discrimination of the government (which the 14th Amendment and Constitution applies to).
Scalia is right, the 14th affords only the protection of equal protection on people classified as citizens from government discrimination. Any other form of protection can only be afforded by statute.
To say that the 14th Amendment affords all people freedom from discrimination from any source all of the time would be legislating from the bench. Clearly this cannot be the case, as the Constitution is only legally binding against actions and law that is issued by governments. Thus is in and of itself cannot protect people from discrimination by other people, or business as neither of these are bound by the Constitution.
Where the article falls down is that Marcia Greenberger states
Quote:
"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them."
Scalia didn't say that at all, because by definition, if government sanctioned discrimination against women, then it would violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, clearly women are citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment. That said it undercuts all of her other examples hysterically used to illustrate this non-point.
What Scalia said was that at the time of ratification, the ONLY thing this amendment was about was blacks. Not women, not gays and not transgenders. He is factually correct. He is also correct about legislatures writing laws to deal with these things.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.
citizen status was defined in the 14th
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. The definition of person is still the same today as it was when the 14th was ratified.
The thing is it depends on who is doing the discrimination, and what is meant by protection.
In most cases the discrimination that is being discussed is not the discrimination of the government (which the 14th amendment and constitution applies to).
Scalia is right, the 14th affords only the protection of equal protection on people classified as citizens from government discrimination. Any other form of protection can only be afforded by statute.
To say that the 14th amendment affords all people freedom from discrimination from any source all of the time would be legislating from the bench. Clearly this cannot be the case, as the constitution is only legally binding against actions and law that is issued by governments. Thus is in and of itself cannot protect people from discrimination by other people, or business as neither of these are bound by the constitution.
Where the article falls down is that marcia greenberger states
scalia didn't say that at all, because by definition, if government sanctioned discrimination against women, then it would violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause, clearly women are citizens as defined by the 14th amendment. That said it undercuts all of her other examples hysterically used to illustrate this non-point.
this^^^
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.
