Justice Scalia is right. The Constitution doesn't protect women from discrimination.

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

Scalia is off his rocker if thinks that a state could legislate discriminatory laws against women and not see such laws challenged and found unconstitutional.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

scared? better?

No one ever said you should be scared or that Scalia is a better person than you are (although we all know he would run circles around you and I doubt he shares your terrorist leanings).

And interestingly enough, the supreme court is even mentioned in article 1 section 3 of the constitution. It makes no mention of the imaginary powers of our own little Scrappy Doo!

So yeah - the opinion of a justice of the SCOTUS on constitutional matters is more meaningful than yours. Scalia is a justice on the highest court of the land, and you are not.

That said.... PUPPY POWER!!!!

AJ, it's very possible that Paul is on the Shadow SCOTUS, which is prepared to mobilise should the court be in need of overthrow.

[^_^ 5,021]

Scalia is off his rocker if thinks that a state could legislate discriminatory laws against women and not see such laws challenged and found unconstitutional.

Scalia isn't saying that those laws wouldn't be found unconstitutional by SCOTUS. He is, after all, only one justice; he clearly does not presume to speak for his peers on the bench.

What he is saying, however, is that going by his originalist view of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment does not protect women from discrimination.

You know, when we read literature in school and college and tried to analyze it (I was never very good at that) we try to look back at the historical context in which the words were being written and determine the authors intent. We don't take the words and re-interpret them in current context. For example, no one looks at the word 'gay' in an 18th century book and ponder it might mean homosexual.

So why not look at what the intent was of the original authors of amendments such as the 14th?

Justice Scalia agrees with this statement. Tell me why you disagree with it. Try to not get into the usual leftist polemics and focus on the statement.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Shut up Charles! and get back in the kitchen.

ETA:

i don't go to the kitchen except to get food

and wash the dishes.

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

What he is saying, however, is that going by his originalist view of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment does not protect women from discrimination.

You know, when we read literature in school and college and tried to analyze it (I was never very good at that) we try to look back at the historical context in which the words were being written and determine the authors intent. We don't take the words and re-interpret them in current context. For example, no one looks at the word 'gay' in an 18th century book and ponder it might mean homosexual.

So why not look at what the intent was of the original authors of amendments such as the 14th?

Justice Scalia agrees with this statement. Tell me why you disagree with it. Try to not get into the usual leftist polemics and focus on the statement.

Isn't it ironic that he considers himself a strict constructionist, but then imagines he can peer inside the minds of the authors of the Constitution and determine if when they wrote that, "all men are created equal," they weren't thinking of women, blacks or even gays, and then believes adhering to the personal shortcomings of those great thinkers instead of realizing their brilliance beyond their own historical and cultural limitations? He makes Jesus do a face palm.

[^_^ 5,021]

Isn't it ironic that he considers himself a strict constructionist, but then imagines he can peer inside the minds of the authors of the Constitution and determine if when they wrote that, "all men are created equal," they weren't thinking of women, blacks or even gays, and then believes adhering to the personal shortcomings of those great thinkers instead of realizing their brilliance beyond their own historical and cultural limitations?

So based on your extensive knowledge of the debate around the 14th Amendment, it is your opinion that they intended for the Amendment to protect women from discrimination?

Could you be so kind as to share some of your work and help us see what you see? Perhaps some quotes from the 39th Congress?

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

So based on your extensive knowledge of the debate around the 14th Amendment, it is your opinion that they intended for the Amendment to protect women from discrimination?

Could you be so kind as to share some of your work and help us see what you see? Perhaps some quotes from the 39th Congress?

The authors of the Constitution were brilliant men, but they weren't above their own human shortcomings. They were products of their own culture and history. But that doesn't, nor should it impede on the truths they espoused, even if those truths weren't fully realized.

[^_^ 5,021]

The authors of the Constitution were brilliant men, but they weren't above their own human shortcomings. They were products of their own culture and history. But that doesn't, nor should it impede on the truths they espoused, even if those truths weren't fully realized.

Quit the mystical bullsh'it and tell us what in the deliberations of the 39th Congress leads you to believe they intended for the 14th Amendment to protect women from discrimination.

And if you can't do it, just say so. Leave the mystical nonsense to that quack Dr. Chopra.

They were products of their own culture and history.

Yes, they were. And their writings were the product of their culture and history. That is the lens through which their writings should be interpreted. That is how we interpret every other work of literature, why interpret the Constitution any differently?

The world changes, you say? Well, good sir - that's why there's an Amendment process! They thought of everything, those evil geniuses.

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

Quit the mystical bullsh'it and tell us what in the deliberations of the 39th Congress leads you to believe they intended for the 14th Amendment to protect women from discrimination.

And if you can't do it, just say so. Leave the mystical nonsense to that quack Dr. Chopra.

Collectively, we are all made up of the same atoms that make up the universe. Wait...sorry...hold on.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires all states to provide equal protection to all people, which led to SCOTUS' ruling against segregation laws. Why does Scalia think that that doesn't include women?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The authors of the Constitution were brilliant men, but they weren't above their own human shortcomings. They were products of their own culture and history. But that doesn't, nor should it impede on the truths they espoused, even if those truths weren't fully realized.

####### does that mean? More Progressive Newspeak? There are enough contemporary works to get an accurate idea what was meant at the time by the words they selected. Scalia, by the way, does not call himself a Strict Constructionist, but rather an Originalist.

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

Yes, they were. And their writings were the product of their culture and history. That is the lens through which their writings should be interpreted. That is how we interpret every other work of literature, why interpret the Constitution any differently?

The world changes, you say? Well, good sir - that's why there's an Amendment process! They thought of everything, those evil geniuses.

It's the spirit of the law that matters, not the letter of it. Unless you're a modern day version of a Pharisee (hence, Jesus doing a face palm).

[james&olya 1,121]

Quit the mystical bullsh'it and tell us what in the deliberations of the 39th Congress leads you to believe they intended for the 14th Amendment to protect women from discrimination.

And if you can't do it, just say so. Leave the mystical nonsense to that quack Dr. Chopra.

Nothing 'mystical' about Steven's post! Very clearly stated but maybe it's over your head?

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

####### does that mean? More Progressive Newspeak? There are enough contemporary works to get an accurate idea what was meant at the time by the words they selected. Scalia, by the way, does not call himself a Strict Constructionist, but rather an Originalist.

The Founders of this country were progressive, old man.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's the spirit of the law that matters, not the letter of it.

No, it's the intent of the authors that matters. This is the standard we use for everything, but suddenly for the Constitution we need to get all Zen about it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Founders of this country were progressive, old man.

Bullsh!t. Progressivism began as a racist movement in the 19th century.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Some Old Guy