Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This matter has been ruled on a long time ago.

In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected...

u-n-a-n-i-m-o-u-s-l-y

That is a little misleading. The ruling applied to that case only, although it did indicate SCOTUS was willing to rule on gender discrimination, on a case by case basis.

Breaking New Ground - Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He's doing his job intepreting the Constitution correctly. I thought you believed in a representative democracy not a star chamber of non-elected geezers doing as they please. Scalia's on the mark and was quite clear in the OP:

Look at the story of King Solomon, where two women both claimed to be the mother of the same child. Back in those days, children were considered property by law and the law stated that in a dispute, the property would be divided up evenly. Law and justice are not synonymous - a good judge must determine the spirit of the law and not just follow the letter of the law. Even Jesus scolded the Pharisees who were always caught up with following the letter of the law.

It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination that the Constitution, which states that all men are created equal, applies also to women. It's kind of amusing to see the same kind of argument made against equal treatment under the law for women that was used for justifying that Blacks did not have the same rights as White people.

Edited January 4, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[^_^ 5,021]

Look at the story of King Solomon ...

No. We don't consult foreign law or precedent in America.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

No. We don't consult foreign law or precedent in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Magna Carta

[^_^ 5,021]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Magna Carta