Scalia at it again.

Scalia at it again. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:29:37 AM)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in a recently published interview that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110104/us_yblog_thelookout/justice-scalia-women-not-constitutionally-protected-from-discrimination

mnottertail -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:37:25 AM)
Well SHIT!!!! We don't want these ignorant fucks legislating from the bench!!!!!!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:43:12 AM)
Of course, he is correct, whether you like it or not.

tazzygirl -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:45:29 AM)
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1971 that the clause protected women from discrimination.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:45:44 AM)
He's kind of an idiot here. The 19th Amendment states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." which pretty much provides that women can be (and are) "citizens of the United States". The 14th Amendment states "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis mine.) I don't see how, even under the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and the law, one could claim that the 14th Amendment bars racial discrimination but not gender discimination. It's pretty much all or nothing.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack He's kind of an idiot here. The 19th Amendment states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." which pretty much provides that women can be (and are) "citizens of the United States". The 14th Amendment states "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis mine.) I don't see how, even under the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and the law, one could claim that the 14th Amendment bars racial discrimination but not gender discimination. It's pretty much all or nothing. Correct. Its nothing. "without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property. Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:50:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1971 that the clause protected women from discrimination. And they are always right, and never legislate from the bench.

mnottertail -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:51:49 AM)
While that may be the considered opinion of an insurance peddler, past rulings would tend to cast a pall on your legal acumen.

tazzygirl -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:52:13 AM)
quote: Correct. Its nothing. "without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property. Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally. Which means, according to you, the US can return to the tradition of owning slaves.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Correct. Its nothing. "without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property. Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally. But that is a different position from Justice Scalia's position. He didn't say that the 14th Amendment affords no protection to anyone. He said that it provides no protection based on gender or sexual orientation - the implication being that it continues to provide protection to discrimination based on race (the generally accepted legal position).

mnottertail -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 11:58:21 AM)
And why shouldn't it? Didn't a republican president use the full force of the federal government to void the constitution and defy what was essentially a states rights issue? Isn't that one of the icons of the conservatives? Seems to me they were agin states rights, before they were for states rights.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:00:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Correct. Its nothing. "without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property. Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally. Which means, according to you, the US can return to the tradition of owning slaves. No, it doesnt mean that. But we know you failed logic 101, so thats no surprise.

tazzygirl -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:01:57 PM)
So tell me great guru... whats the difference between racism and sexism as far as the constitution goes?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:06:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Correct. Its nothing. "without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property. Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally. But that is a different position from Justice Scalia's position. He didn't say that the 14th Amendment affords no protection to anyone. He said that it provides no protection based on gender or sexual orientation - the implication being that it continues to provide protection to discrimination based on race (the generally accepted legal position). AFAIK he was silent on race, not that he agreed it provides protection based on race. Remember that SCOTUS has also ruled that discrimination on any basis is permitted if the basis is one that represents a bona fide impediment to the performance of the job.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And why shouldn't it? Didn't a republican president use the full force of the federal government to void the constitution and defy what was essentially a states rights issue? Isn't that one of the icons of the conservatives? Seems to me they were agin states rights, before they were for states rights. You're talking about Lincoln's suspending Habeas Corpus and imprisoning the Maryland legislators to stop them from voting, right? [;)]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:07:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So tell me great guru... whats the difference between racism and sexism as far as the constitution goes? There is none, since the Constitution doesnt mention either.

tazzygirl -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:10:10 PM)
Ah so you dont view slavery as it was practiced in the US as racism.

mnottertail -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:10:12 PM)
At least that, and in other issues there was a kansas-nebraska act in force already---several times he trampled states rights, and was accounted a hero. One reason they made a posse comitatus act, I should think.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:22:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ah so you dont view slavery as it was practiced in the US as racism. Your inability to think logically shines through once again.

tazzygirl -> RE: Scalia at it again. (1/4/2011 12:23:40 PM)
And you are avoiding he topic once again. Gotta admit, you are the expert at saying alot, without saying a damn thing at all.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875