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.
He was unanismaly approved by both parties in the senate. The democrats had enough votes to vilabuster the nomination. I wonder why they didn't?
Political nitpicking from three decades ago does not change the fact that today's GOP is openly hostile towards women's rights.
I'll never CONSIDER voting for Republicans as long as they actively promote and defend discrimination. It's sad that this is what they stand for. But it's been proven so many times over the past couple decades that this sort of thing isn't even surprising anymore.
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.
I'm not a liberal. I'm more of a Libertarian. I despise both parties.
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.
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.
Political nitpicking from three decades ago does not change the fact that today's GOP is openly hostile towards women's rights.
I'll never CONSIDER voting for Republicans as long as they actively promote and defend discrimination. It's sad that this is what they stand for. But it's been proven so many times over the past couple decades that this sort of thing isn't even surprising anymore.
Being a member is SCOTUS he is not a member of one political party or the other.
Your nitpicking things from years ago, so I thought recent history is fair game.
Nice to see the woman in danger memes are starting up nice an early for hillary.
Having re-read Scalia's remarks (from 2011), I recognize the logic of what he says. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, the people who wrote the amendment and who voted for it, had no intention of according equal rights to women. So Scalia says that it's up to legislatures to pass laws prohibiting discrimination against women. Since the Constitution doesn't REQUIRE discrimination against women, his argument is that the laws against discrimination would stand Constitutional review. Perhaps they would, but the lawsuits that have been filed regarding discrimination against women have relied on the 14th Amendment and equal protection, so precedent suggests that Scalia's interpretation is missing some key concepts here.
And this is relevant to us because SC has filed an amicus brief regarding gay marriage that says straight out that since the Constitution allows discrimination against women, that it also allows discrimination against gay people. They took Scalia's idea and ran with it.
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.
I wonder if he'll rule that women are not persons.
Woman-Owned corporations get preferential treatment on Government contracts.
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.
Having re-read Scalia's remarks (from 2011), I recognize the logic of what he says. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, the people who wrote the amendment and who voted for it, had no intention of according equal rights to women. So Scalia says that it's up to legislatures to pass laws prohibiting discrimination against women. Since the Constitution doesn't REQUIRE discrimination against women, his argument is that the laws against discrimination would stand Constitutional review. Perhaps they would, but the lawsuits that have been filed regarding discrimination against women have relied on the 14th Amendment and equal protection, so precedent suggests that Scalia's interpretation is missing some key concepts here.
And this is relevant to us because SC has filed an amicus brief regarding gay marriage that says straight out that since the Constitution allows discrimination against women, that it also allows discrimination against gay people. They took Scalia's idea and ran with it.
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.
The day we went from Constitutional law, to Precedent Law, is the day the Constitution started to be re-written from the bench.
They no longer go by what the Constitution says. They go by previous rulings made by political appointees.
God Damn what the Constitution actually says.
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.
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, without the flexibility to consider the rights of the FOUNDING MOTHERS, or the women who raised these men. It is a rigid, idiotic way to interpret the Constitution, one that gives no consideration to the changes in society over time. Women were not meant to be subservient forever, given less consideration as a matter of course, and never should've been viewed that way in the first place.
Over the next 8 years, we're going to see the Court flip back to being left-leaning. Hopefully during this time, pathetic Justices like Thomas and Scalia can disappear. They are an embarrassment in their attempts to take us back a few centuries on these types of matters.
The day we went from Constitutional law, to Precedent Law, is the day the Constitution started to be re-written from the bench.
They no longer go by what the Constitution says. They go by previous rulings made by political appointees.
God Damn what the Constitution actually says.
The Constitution doesn't say that discrimination against women is okay.
The Constitution DOES say that citizens of the United States are afforded equal protection under the law.
The fact that at one time women weren't accorded full citizenship, or that any other modern-day citizens, were at one time not accorded full citizenship, does not mean that they should not be accorded full citizenship today. The Constitution says CITIZENS. It doesn't say land-owning white males.
And Constitutional law and "Precedent" law, are not two different things. Precedent is fully part of the legal process, and always has been. Even before the Constitution. Since our legal system is based on the English common law system, where precedent helped establish the law, Constitutional law as the bedrock of our legal system, actually depends on precedent helping to establish and define the law.
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.
