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.
If anyone is interested in Scalia's real constitutional opinions without the deliberate distortions or low-IQ arguments that further a phony "war on women" to scare voters, you can read a good summary here: In Conversation With Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine
Scalia's responses in bold below.
Quote:
What about sex discrimination? Do you think the Fourteenth Amendment covers it? Of course it covers it! No, you can’t treat women differently, give them higher criminal sentences. Of course not.
A couple of years ago, I think you told California Lawyer something different. What I was referring to is: The issue is not whether it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Of course it does. The issue is, “What is discrimination?”
If there’s a reasonable basis for not *letting women do something—like going into combat or whatnot ...
Let’s put it this way: Do you think the same level of scrutiny that applies to race should apply to sex? I am not a fan of different levels of scrutiny. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, blah blah blah blah. That’s just a thumb on the scales.
But there are some intelligent reasons to treat women differently. I don’t think anybody would deny that. And there really is no, virtually no, intelligent reason to treat people differently on the basis of their skin.
For example, Scalia argues that it is LEGAL to have a military draft that ONLY drafts men. However, this IS discrimination - it is legally okay to discriminate genders on a military draft. It is okay if you disagree with Scalia that it is okay to discriminate based on genders in some incidents - but let us not distort and fear monger to scare voters with a false and meritless war on women meme.
If anyone is interested in Scalia's real constitutional opinions without the deliberate distortions or low-IQ arguments that further a phony "war on women" to scare voters, you can read a good summary here: In Conversation With Antonin Scalia -- New York Magazine
Scalia's responses in bold below.
For example, Scalia argues that it is LEGAL to have a military draft that ONLY drafts men. However, this IS discrimination - it is legally okay to discriminate genders on a military draft. It is okay if you disagree with Scalia that it is okay to discriminate based on genders in some incidents - but let us not distort and fear monger to scare voters with a false and meritless war on women meme.
I understand where Scalia is coming from, but its used to justify far broader discrimination than what occurs. And in the case of the military draft, I think that time has proven that women should be included in the draft. Something that someone as old as Scalia might have a problem relating too. He doesn't look 79 years old to be fair. but he actually is.
I understand where Scalia is coming from, but its used to justify far broader discrimination than what occurs. And in the case of the military draft, I think that time has proven that women should be included in the draft. Something that someone as old as Scalia might have a problem relating too. He doesn't look 79 years old to be fair. but he actually is.
Virtually all people favor some levels of gender discrimination.
For example, most people are fine with gender discrimination when hiring a "Girls Locker Room Attendant" for a swimming pool.
In fact, most people would call this common sense.
Do Democrats say that the Father has as much right to the unborn child as the Mother? Of course not! Could I scream like a disingenuous fool that the Democrats are waging a "war on men" as the Democrats so often disingenuously do to the Republicans on such issues?
Virtually everyone - including virtually all Democrats agree that there should be some legal differences between men and women -- many of the differences arguably favor women and maybe there are legitimate reasons to treat men and women different in rare circumstances -- the only thing that we are really arguing about is what those differences should be. How many, to what extent, and etc...
Democrats are taking the fact that Scalia believes there can be legal differences - ignoring the fact that the Democrats also believe there can be legal differences and then disingenuously or unintelligently claiming that he doesn't believe in total equality to mean more than what he is saying in truth.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 04-13-2015 at 07:14 PM..
I understand where Scalia is coming from, but its used to justify far broader discrimination than what occurs. And in the case of the military draft, I think that time has proven that women should be included in the draft. Something that someone as old as Scalia might have a problem relating too. He doesn't look 79 years old to be fair. but he actually is.
Call me a chauvinist but if I was king women wouldn't get drafted. If they want to volunteer, that would be up to them.
I understand where Scalia is coming from, but its used to justify far broader discrimination than what occurs. And in the case of the military draft, I think that time has proven that women should be included in the draft. Something that someone as old as Scalia might have a problem relating too. He doesn't look 79 years old to be fair. but he actually is.
Interesting point. I just saw Rubio's presidential announcement on CNN and he was making the same commentary (in a veiled way) about Hillary.
In fact, Hillary at age 67 is only 3 years younger than McCain was in 2008 when he was often attacked for being too old and out of touch with today.
Reagan was in between them in age when he started his presidential campaign....and yes, he was "too old" as well according to some.
But don't worry, I look forward to hearing complaints about Hillarys age turn into another "war on women" when republicans start making them instead of democrats.
And lest anyone think this is some isolated, off-the-cuff remark... Republicans in South Carolina have just filed a brief saying that since it IS legal for them to discriminate against women, they can also discriminate against gay people:
This is what the GOP is referring to when they yap about 'freedom'. What they MEAN is 'freedom' for straight white christian males. And nobody else.
Except if you go and actually read the amicus brief filed by South Carolina and not that horribly slanted article, you will see, right in the second paragraph of the brief "The historic evidence concerning the treatment of women, presented as the views of the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers are not those of the State today". They were talking about the history of the 14th. Geez, talk about bad journalism - oh wait - it's Slate, that's to be expected.
Except if you go and actually read the amicus brief filed by South Carolina and not that horribly slanted article, you will see, right in the second paragraph of the brief "The historic evidence concerning the treatment of women, presented as the views of the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers are not those of the State today". They were talking about the history of the 14th. Geez, talk about bad journalism - oh wait - it's Slate, that's to be expected.
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.
Amazing how dense liberals can be when it comes to plain communication on a fairly simple issue.
Oh wait it's the dreaded Scalia lets all lose our minds because of an idiotic article in the huffenpuffer.
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.
