Government

Scalia: Sex Discrimination Not Inherently Prohibited in Constitution

The news may not be shocking to originalist interpreters of the Constitution. But this morning, the left is up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments in a recent magazine interview that the 14th Amendment and the “Equal Protection” clause was not penned for the goal of preventing sex discrimination.

In the January 2011 edition of “California Lawyer,” Scalia was asked:

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. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

He responded by explaining that sexual discrimination was not the goal, but that doesn‘t mean that United States doesn’t have the proper means to still prevent such discrimination:

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

But while it seems Scalia is simply outlining the checks-and-balances system of the United States government, and explaining how democracy works, the left is making Scalia out to be a a sexist homophobe.

The Huffington Post covered the story by quoting the Equal Protection clause and then saying, “That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.” It goes on to quote a womens‘ rights advocate calling Scalia’s comments “shocking” and saying “there’s nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them.”

But absent from HuffPo‘s article is a focus on Scalia’s comments that “certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex.“ Scalia goes out of his way to say that just because ”there’s nothing in the Constitution about that … doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it.”

Scalia made similar comments at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in September. “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex…you have legislatures,” he said. And in 1996, he dissented in the Supreme Court decision that ended the 157-year tradition of all-male education at Virginia Military Institute. As in his magazine and UC-Hastings remarks, his dissent in that case, United States v. Virginia, pointed out that there is a normal democratic process for making laws:

…the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.

Comments (85)

1 2
  • Bernard
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:26pm

    Discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation has now penetrated all aspects of our society. First led by the feminist movement and then after the “Stone wall riots” in New York it became a Homosexual issue.
    Mountains of paper and oceans of ink have been written about human sexuality. From the famous Kama Sutra written over two thousand years ago to the 20th century Kinsey report, human sexuality cannot be confined to any particular category. According to the Kinsey Report human sexuality cannot be put into any category. Human sexuality according to this report involves various sexual acts by anyone. The report states studies that most Heterosexuals have indulged in Homosexual acts, including incest, bestiality etc. but are still labeled Heterosexuals.
    It was the “gay movement” that has defined people by their sexual act,

    Having said that as a Christian I find that the most open and blatant homosexuals have denigrated the Christian faith at any opportunity they get and never have they been called on it. A classic example is seen in San Francisco where men dress up as Catholic nuns calling themselves “The sisters of perpetual indulgence” a clear mockery of a pious and most charitable sector of the Catholic faith and yet no Christian has taken this group to courts.
    If these gays did the same with Islam which is far more intorelent of and dressed up as Imams I am sure the Muslim community would either take legal action or take matters into their own hands. This double standard of catering to the loudest voice of this community needs to be addressed.

    Report Post »  
  • silquin11
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:54pm

    Your preferences in the bedroom SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO BECOME A CONSTITUITONAL ISSUE! YOU GO JUDGE SCALIA!!!! STOP THIS NONSENSE AND MADNESS ALREADY! So the Constitution should protect me and I should have special rights because I prefer chocolate or vanilla? PLEASE!!!!! STOP THE ABUSE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE ALREADY!

    Report Post »  
    • foxislyingtoallofyou
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:32pm

      you’re an idiot. Bedroom? The word sex in this context means male or female. NOT SEXUAL INTERCOARSE.

      BECK HAS SLOW FOLLOWERS! HAHA

      Report Post »  
  • historypaper
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:47pm

    O.K. now the stupid left likes the constitution. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s is correct.

    Report Post » historypaper  
  • The Bees
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:09pm

    Sounds like a Judge who has actually read the Constitution!

    Report Post » The Bees  
  • SIMPERFIDELIS
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 1:03pm

    Women have the same rights as men do, and they were not established by the government or a legislature. they were endowed to us by God upon our birth. It is how you use those rights that makes you different from others in our society.

    Simply put Scalia is a champion of individual rights. he understands that our rights as humans were endowed to us by God, and the federal or state government does not have the power to indrude on those rights.

    if a women thinks she is being discriminated against she has the right of an attorney to defend her case in court.

    Report Post »  
    • foxislyingtoallofyou
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 1:08pm

      your a typical beck FOLLOWER. naive.

      Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 1:15pm

      Unfortunately alot of people love to sue for discrimination when they were rejected on their lack of qualifications or their inability to do the job.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • tommee
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 1:20pm

      But according to Scalia, women are not citizens of the United States. They may have rights according to you and your God, but none in the U.S. court system.

      Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:26pm

      TOMMEE Where did you read that women are not citizens? Nowhere, you made it up. Shame on you. Scalia didn’t say that and you should be ashamed to post on ANY site with that type of blatant lie.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • tommee
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:55pm

      Untamable-Kate: It’s the only conclusion one can come to. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “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, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

      Scalia says that women don’t have Constitutional protection against discrimination, even though the constitution says that ALL citizens cannot be deprived of life, liberty, property or denied equal protection of the law.

      If women were citizens, they would be entitled to the rights of citizens as described in the constitution.

      Since Scalia says women do not have constitutional protection, he really is saying that they are not American citizens.

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 5:00pm

      @Tommee
      “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, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

      You were able to quote, or cut and paste, the text of the amendment correctly. So far, so good. Congratulations.

      Now let’s take this step by step, okay?
      1. No State- Which State are you citing?
      2. shall make or enforce any law – What statute of the State from #1 above are you citing?
      3. which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States – According to the statute(s) cited in #2 above what privileges and/or immunities granted by the Constitution are/were abridged?

      I’m going to stop right there, for now. Until these are answered it makes little sense to go any further. So far all you have said is a very inspecific “according to Scalia, women are not citizens”. A text serch of the article does not find any match. Please help me narrow it down so I can begin to understand your point. Peace.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • foxislyingtoallofyou
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:55pm

    Where is the article condemning Boehner for HIS constitution error, like you had for Ezra Klein’s?

    [Holding up his Constitution]
    I’m going to stand here with our Founding Fathers, who wrote in the pre-amble, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident.’” However, that’s the pre-amble to the Declaration of Independence.

    Not the same thing. (Identifying more “selective outage”)

    Report Post »  
  • henrythemexican
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:36pm

    Th constitution also didn’t specifically say that a fat, italian, catholic, misogynistic pig could sit on the highest court in the land either!

    Report Post » henrythemexican  
    • SIMPERFIDELIS
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:55pm

      can you say racist?

      but it did not say he could not.

      also the founders were smart enough to write another great document, the bill of rights, which gives you the right to bad mouth a patriot like Scalia.

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:58pm

      Henry, Henry, Henry,

      Deep breaths brother. Estamos compadres aqui!

      Report Post » cykonas  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:20pm

      Henry,

      Does this mean a person who likes Oriental soybean paste and does a lot of exercise?

      Report Post » cykonas  
    • GENEPAGLIARI
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 4:03pm

      That was meaningful discourse.

      Report Post »  
  • BlazingInSC
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:31pm

    I have said this time and again in other forums – Roe v. Wade is a sham that should never have been taken to the SCotUS (along with the other abortion cases). This was (and still is) a state issue that needs to be legislated accordingly. If people wanted this to be addressed at the federal level, then it should be amended to the Constitution and debated on those grounds only AFTER it is amended. Instead, the SCotUS made up the imaginary “substantive due process” clause to support the case of federally protecting abortion. Scalia is 100% right! And to the Non-Sequitor – yes, at the time the document was written, blacks did belong on plantations and women in kitchens, but you know what? That was fixed through the amendment process — see, it really does work! I’m sick and tired of people making things up to shape the intent very clearly defined words just to suit an agenda.

    Report Post »  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:49pm

      Actually its stops at common sense and one of the enaliable rights declared in our Declaration of Independence: Life. I don’t see how the PRIVACY right overrides the right to Life. I don’t understand how it is a federal crime to harm the egg of an eagle but not the fetus of a human being.

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
  • cogito ergo sum
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:12pm

    If we go by what Scalia says then it is left upto the legislature to prevent discrimination. That is a very big problem if the legislature is perfectly fine with being a discriminatory entity. If we look at American history it becomes very obvious we cannot allow discrimination to be voted on by people. We need an external standard that says discrimination is wrong or else we have to decide if some people should full rights, some rights, or no rights. That should not be something up for vote. We cannot allow some states to allow for discrimination because their residents think it’s okay. What Scalia says will allow for discrimination because “we the people” want to.

    Cogito Ergo Sum

    Report Post » cogito ergo sum  
    • foxislyingtoallofyou
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:20pm

      Intelligent Post

      Report Post »  
    • BlazingInSC
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:34pm

      The problem is what one person may find discriminatory, another may not. It‘s like being called a racist because you don’t agree with the current administrator’s policies. You can‘t legislate something subjective like a person’s opinion… What you can do is legislate against criminal actions that eminate from groups like the New Black Panthers or the KKK… It’s objective and tangible. “Discrimination” is subjective and intangible.

      Report Post »  
    • SIMPERFIDELIS
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:52pm

      As a private business owner i have the RIGHT to discriminate who I hire and to whom I sell. If an individual has terrible credit I have the RIGHT to discriminate on them for opening a line of credit. If the an individual wants a job, however is a convicted felon, I have the RIGHT to discriminate from hiring this individual based on his criminal past.

      In the end everyone discriminates against someone or some entity. That is our right as citizens.

      The more the government and legislatures regulate discrimination, the entity they regulate becomes less and less competetive.

      Think of it this way, currently 68% of players in the NBA are african american. yet african americans get 93% of the playing time. that is discriminatory to the minority races in the league, (obviously the minorities are not as talented as the african americans or they would play over them).
      Now say the NBA makes a rule that caps the amount of time african americans can play because coaches are discriminating over the less talented players.

      What does that do to the league? It makes it less competitive.

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:33pm

      @CRS
      “We need an external standard that says discrimination is wrong…”

      I’m not at all sure what you mean by external. External to what? We do have an “internal” standard. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. It says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      Just out of curiousity who is the going to give us this “external” standard as you call it? The United Nations? Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro or his brother (whichever one is now running that dump)? Exactly who do you favor over the internal standard quoted above?

      By the way, there is a reason that Latin is a dead language. They failed. We won’t.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • foxislyingtoallofyou
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:53am

    HOW DO YOU FEEL THAT THE BLAZE IS LYING TO YOU?

    They deceptively edited the Huffington Posts article to imply THEY were dishonest. Those with courage to actually SEE the truth, follow the link and you will see the text they say is omitted in the 4th paragraph down.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

    DENOUNCE THE HATE OF GLENN BECK

    Report Post »  
    • SIMPERFIDELIS
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:31pm

      this would not be the first time huffpost has put “spin” on a story, and for sure is not the first time they have attempted to schmere a conservatives views.

      if you believe fox lies, you have to admit so does msnbc & your so dear huffington post.

      at least on this website you will not be censored for making conflicting remarks with theblaze. what website does that again? could it be the huffingtonpost?

      Report Post »  
  • Diamondback
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:45am

    And those “laws” MUST be supported by enumerated powers verbiage in the U.S. Constitution to be legitimately enforceable against the people and states.

    Report Post »  
  • Hoosier Daddy
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:44am

    “…politics smuggled into law.” Brilliant, and so true. Unfortunately, this truth would zoom right over the fat, ugly heads of Obama’s latest supreme court bovine socialists.

    Report Post » Hoosier Daddy  
  • Chett
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:37am

    hey I like a bit of discrimination myself … men and women are supposed to be different.

    Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:05pm

      Alot of people would disagree with that but I don’t. Sometimes it doesn’t matter, alot of times it does, mothers who don’t want to care for their children because a career is more important to them. Fathers who don’t want the responsibility of being the provider for the children he helped create.
      When I camp with my best friend he takes the man role stocking the wood pile setting up shades etc. I do the ‘womans work’, setting up the tents and cooking areas and watching over the kids. I cook and he tends the fire and it works out nicely.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
  • Plankchapel
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:33am

    I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Leftists are aiming for absolute entitlement — if one simply walks into a job interview, he should be entitled to the job or else the employer will face a court battle for discrimination.

    Why do people stay up all night long to make my life miserable?

    Report Post »  
    • foxislyingtoallofyou
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:24pm

      Back up these ridiculous claims. MAN YOU PEOPLE ARE DENSE! everything is a conspiracy theory to you. Us “liberals” dont meet once a week like Beck tells you!

      Report Post »  
  • foxislyingtoallofyou
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:28am

    COPIED FROM HUUFINGTON POST:

    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. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
    Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion?

    >>>>>>>There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. <<<<<<<<<

    Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

    Report Post »  
    • SIMPERFIDELIS
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:26pm

      Please, if you believe everything that huffingtonpost puts out there you need to wake up. look right now on their website “arriana’s post”. if you want to talk about lies you need to include huffingtonpost.

      to do otherwise proves you are one sided.

      Report Post »  
    • foxislyingtoallofyou
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:37pm

      The point is this article lied about deceptive editing by huffpo. And no one checked it!

      Haha

      Report Post »  
  • foxislyingtoallofyou
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:27am

    YOU PEOPLE ARE SOOOOOO FOOLISH:

    I copied this text DIRECTLY from HuffPost

    “There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it”

    IF YOU ALL WERE NOT SOOOO STUPID AS TO NOT EVEN FOLLOW THE LINK AND CHECK FOR YOURSELF:

    GLENNDA BECK OWNS THE STUPID AND LAZY

    Report Post »  
  • foxislyingtoallofyou
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:25am

    You people are actually defending this guy? How is this comment any less stupid than the constitution is confusing topic. Did any of you read this:

    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.”

    or what about the fact that in 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.

    Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:42pm

      Justice Scalia does not need my defense. Your summary description of the Virginia Military Institute decision is not accurate. You say, “Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.” Justice Scalia cast a dissenting vote. Dissent means, among other things, to disagree. So he didn’t agree to allow anything as you assert.

      His vote, essentially, was dissenting to the assertion of the suit that the Constitution forbade VMI and the Commonwealth of Virginia from having a male only policy at any one institution. And, the Constitution clearly is silent on this issue.

      Further your assertion that Justice Scalia’s opinion in this matter should be considered equivelent to a journalist saying, “the constitution is confusing topic” is gratuitous at best. While the journalist may be confused and others, including you, may be confused, but I don’t believe that Justice Scalia or the majority of Americans are confused.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • fancydancy
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:22am

    All mankind has had what some call inappropriate behaviors…it’s in our face that most of us object to. People have the right in our country for the most part to do as they please as long as it doesn’t harm others. I object to sticking your finger in MY eye and demanding that I not only accept your behavior but sanction it.

    Report Post »  
  • untameable-kate
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:17am

    No way! You mean the Huff PO took something out of context and then used it to smear and besmirch someones reputation? I thought they were here to tell the real truth, to enlighten us, Oh woe is me.

    Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • Reagan/DeMint.desciple
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:21am

      I love that saying KATE.. “ Oh woe is me” cracks me up when Mark Levin says it on radio program.. lolololo :~)

      Report Post » one years food ration like glenn says  
    • clipper@work
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:27am

      Obama’s choice for us serfs to gather our news.

      Report Post »  
    • foxislyingtoallofyou
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:35am

      You mean hate-filled conservatives are too lazy to actually follow the link that shows NOTHING was removed from the article. NO WAY

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

      Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:44am

      Yeah I‘ll get right on that ’minding Obama’ thing.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:34pm

      Oh me! Oh my! You mean the HuffPost is LYING to us ALL!!! (sarcasm intentional)

      (In best fainting southern bell accent) “Oh, I must now go and drown my sorrows in massive cups of hot cocca filled with the richest of sugared cream and marshmellows; and dine on the finest of the sixteen tiered, triple layered fudge chocolate cocca cake bathed with layers of butter glaze and coated with the finest swiss chocolate moose frostings to some depth of six inches…Oh my why oh just why would they say such a thing…”

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • ShineTheLightBrighter
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:16am

    I respectfully disagree with our esteemed justice. I believe the writers of the constitution were ahead of their time and wrote it in a manner that would allow future generations to see the error of their institutions and correct them across the nation not just a given state. This was true of slavery as well as the prevalent discrimination against a woman’s standing in the then man’s world.

    Report Post »  
    • UpstateNYConservative
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:34am

      Ah, but…

      The Constitution limits government, not the right of private organizations to assemble as they please.

      For example, there was a successful lawsuit by a woman to get into a men’s private club so she could have better access to make business arrangements. That’s not equal protection, and it violates the rights of free people to congregate as they see fit, long as they do no genuine public harm.

      We‘ve been bashed over the head with our own Constitution by people who call that great Document ’outdated’ and all other such things. Then they use it to advance an agenda at the same time.

      I agree that government can’t discriminate, and legislatures decide how that is to be carried out among the public. But private clubs, and gatherings, and organizations are not subject to the Constitution. Sadly, Leftists have changed that.

      Report Post » UpstateNYConservative  
    • ShineTheLightBrighter
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:04pm

      @UpstateNYConservative
      Every citizen and legal occupant and all entities operating within the United States and it territories are subject to, bound by and enjoy the protections of the Consitution.

      Report Post »  
    • cykonas
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:10pm

      Shine, for my two cents worth; I don’t object when the Constitution is properly amended. I believe that is what you mean when you say the Founders allowed that things might change in the future. I agree with you and I agree with the Founders.

      Where I begin to disagree is when it’s done by courts below the level of the Supreme Court, regulatory agencies, executive orders and other forms of legislative fiat. That, in my meek and humble opinion, is dead wrong. I think the Founders carefully crafted a way for us to change or amend the Constitution if and when we felt it necessary, and I believe they purposely made it an arduous process so we would not end up with a mish mash of crazy laws that needed constant litigation to interpret and reinterpret. The approval requirements for amending the Constitution were also made very strict to insure that a very broad majority of Americans were in agreement before any changes were approved.

      It’s the unauthorized capricious changing of the Constitution that are done in various unproscribed manners that should not be allowed. Besides being wrong, it only furthers the fortunes of the lowest of scum in our Republic like attorney’s, the ACLU, the ABA and the bizillion special interest groups, and others who we would all be much better off without. Peace.

      Report Post » cykonas  
  • UpstateNYConservative
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:16am

    If the Left REALLY wanted a tight interpretation of the 14th, it wouldn’t demand graduated tax rates based on income. We would have a flat income tax, not what the Left thinks is ‘fair’ because people make a certain amount of money.

    Amazing how Lefties want loose interpretations of the Constitution in some areas, and ‘plain meaning’ in others.

    BTW–For you Lefties out there, I’m not a wealthy man.

    Report Post » UpstateNYConservative  
    • Ellie
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:55pm

      Too True, the leftists (a.k.a. progressives, socialists, and other tyrannical sociopaths) are quick to claim constitutional protections when it helps one of their protected classes. However, it is perfectly fine to be prejudicial and bigoted towards those who only differ in income or wealth. They constantly assert that the “rich can afford….“ and that all income is ”unearned” if it is not from a union or government job.

      Considering that most of the Leftist rich became so via royalty checks from work that they did years or decades ago it is not that surprising that they think the rest of the “rich” became so from such minimal effort.

      Had they become rich by creating anything of substance and had to work everyday to maintain sales and continuously improve their products for decades and by extension the human condition then they would be far less likely to see their fellow rich as lazy and undeserving as they know that they are.

      Report Post » Ellie  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:08pm

      Animal Farm – Right “All animals are equal”
      Left Spin “All animals are equal, some are more equal than others.”

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
  • Reagan/DeMint.desciple
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:13am

    Of course the huffpo doesn’t report the ” doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it” words.. That’s just them MAKING a story.. Like to see BECKISSANE spin this one….

    Report Post » one years food ration like glenn says  
    • snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:22am

      Do not worry, he/or they will find some means, even by twisting it out of all proportions to fit their own views of delusional intentions of the world beyond the rabbit hole.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • beekeeper
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:12am

    He’s making a point about activist judges and impotent legislators.

    It’s easier to convince 5 judges that something should be a certain way than to gather support from 2/3rds of the members in the House and Senate to pass a law…

    The questio…n relates to what the Senators, Congressmen, and the general citizenry were thinking when they ammended the Constitution in 1868, right after the end of the Civil War when “separate but equal” was the law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson) and when women couldn’t vote, etc.

    As Associate Justice Scalia said in the article:

    ” If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

    A few years before ratifying the 14th Amendment, almost one half of the country thought it was OK to own slaves, can anyone reasonably argue that they went from that position to to thinking about the protection from discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation when they passed the 14th amendment?

    If they thought about it at the time, they thought about it for a very, very long time. It would be over 50 years before women got the right to vote (19th Amendment, in 1920) and almost 100 years before the Civil Rights act of 1964 went into effect – neither of which would have been needed if the 14th Amendment meant what Scalia’s detractors claim.

    Section 2 of the 14th Amendment contains language that does not treat both sexes equally – it contains provisions regarding denying men the right to vote – not men and women, just men… That’s a reminder that the sexes were not equal (women couldn’t vote) at the time the Amendment passed, and were not to be treated the same after it passed.

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

    Report Post » beekeeper  
    • VanGrungy
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 10:55pm

      Amendments were never intended to be a coercion of America’s culture… The first ten are a template for adjustments to Federal Limits, not course corrections…

      It’s too bad it took coercion to correct the course of human events…

      =====

      If the government can’t discriminate between men and women, what will happen should conscription be needed again?

      Does the government just send the women out to be slaughtered on an equal basis as men?

      Report Post » VanGrungy  
  • crossdraw
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:11am

    Unlike the politicos who took the oath and then admitted they do not understand the constitution. It’s a hundred years old afterall. Why are these screws still in office. They defiled their oaths, they don’t believe in the constitution and yet there they sit, untouchable and elite. There are too many chicken-s***s in this government. Scared to death of rocking the boat even though the freakin boat is sinking. What a pack of Maroons.

    Report Post »  
    • VerySeniorCitizen
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:37am

      It seems that Scalia doesn’t understand the Constitution either.

      Fourteenth Amendment. “No State shall make of 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, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

      I don’t know about you, but in my mind – even women are citizens.

      Oh, by the way, the Constitution is not a mere one hundred years old. It is MORE THAN 200 years old.

      Report Post »  
    • tobywil2
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:47am

      Only individuals have rights! To give special rights to any group, those rights must first be taken away from the individual! http://commonsense21c.com/

      Report Post » tobywil2  
    • paciF1ST
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 1:01pm

      @veryseniorcitizen: This is my first post, I just had to clarify something.
      “Fourteenth Amendment. “No State shall make of (sic) enforce any law…”
      Please understand that by preventing the state from enacting a law regarding a given activity, does not make that activity illegal by default. Justice Scalia was simply stating that the 14th amendment was misapplied to these issues, and that it is not within the court’s authority to legislate from the bench. We have congress to make such laws.
      Side note: Crossdraw was referring to Washington Post writer Ezra Klein who stated on MSNBC, “My friends on the right don’t like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written 100 years ago…”.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:36pm

      “But while it seems Scalia is simply outlining the checks-and-balances system of the United States government, and explaining how democracy works, the left is making Scalia out to be a a sexist homophobe.”

      What rubbish. Scalia established the principle of originalism in his Heller decision. He said that even though the framers could not envision modern arms, the right to bear arms in the second amendment would apply when such arms came about. He also had no problem in Citizens United attributing first amendment free speech rights to limited liability companies even though such entities did not exist and the corporations that did exist were clearly not intended to receive free speech rights under the first amendment. If you are following this, then you see that originalism allows for a principle to be applied to other recipients and in changed circumstances so the Constitution can remain relevant. In Heller, Scalia colorfully noted that to rule otherwise would be ridiculous. So there is no way that he can now say that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to women or gays because the authors of that amendment lived at a time when such equality would not be expected. This view totally contradicts Heller and Citizens United!! Someone ought to explain why Scalia is not contradicting himself and proving himself a hypocrite with these rulings…because I cannot distinguish them.

      Report Post »  
    • VanGrungy
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 10:19pm

      So there is no way that he can now say that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to women or gays because the authors of that amendment lived at a time when such equality would not be expected. This view totally contradicts Heller and Citizens United!!

      ====

      Ummm Did women and gays become bigger and badder versions of men?

      A gun can come in many forms… straight males haven’t been redesigned into women and gays…

      I don’t see your correlation…

      Perhaps you should make use of the 19th to have congress legislate equality laws… That’s why they put it in there…

      Report Post » VanGrungy  
  • Carbine1
    Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:09am

    When the contitution was written EVERYONE new their own place in Society. Now they don’t. So what’s new?

    Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:22am

      Let the left and the Progressives rant and rampage onwards all they want; it is US the people of the land who will restore her to the original intent God has for her.

      Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • GeauxAlready
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:24am

      Then I guess DADT don’t matter any more………..

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • anigmanm
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:25am

      the new part is those who does not like the place they put them selves in want to be in the place you are in, to the exclusion of you being there.

      Report Post »  
    • Non-sequitur
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:41am

      Yep, at the time the Constitution was written, blacks knew they belonged on the plantations and women knew they belonged in the kitchen or the bedroom.

       
    • oldguy48
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:02pm

      He is correct. So what? The left doesn’t believe in the constitution anyway.

      Report Post »  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:46pm

      Exactly right. Scalia is just restating the checks and balances our government is built upon. Judges are there to answer questions about the literal translation of the law. Not to interpret it in a new and modern way. Activist judges are one of the biggest threats to this nation and were recognized as such by the founding fathers. Let me restate that in a more definitive way. Our current form of government will not work if activist judges take over. At that point we will essentially have ONE branch of governement.

      If you don’t like something… get a majority of people to agree with you and pass a law. You don’t get to bypass the majority by reinterpreting old law. You don’t get to bypass a vote by REINTREPRETING laws. You have to intrepret the laws as the way they were intended when they were passed BECAUSE THAT’S THE IDEA THAT WAS VOTED ON. THAT’S HOW A DEMOCRACY WORKS! This is all Scalia is saying.

      This seems incredibly reasonable to me.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 2:26pm

      This account of Scalia’s controversial comments is such simplified garbage: “But while it seems Scalia is simply outlining the checks-and-balances system of the United States government, and explaining how democracy works, the left is making Scalia out to be a a sexist homophobe.”

      Here is the problem with it that smart people understand and theblaze.com clearly doesn’t. When Scalia authored the Heller decision, strengthening the right to bear arms under his interpretation of the Second Amendment, Scalia noted that just because the founding fathers could not envision every type of arms that would be invented in the future didn’t mean that the second amendment would not apply to it once it came about. He also found no barrier to attributing first amendment free speech rights to corporations even though such an organization was not even in existence when the first amendment was written. However, because the authors of the 14th amendment were living in an era in which they reasonably would not have attributed equal rights to women or gays, then the Supreme Court cannot impute them there either. This is a totally hypocritical position to take that contradicts what Scalia held in Heller and Citizens United!! That theblaze.com thinks this is merely highlighting checks and balances shows you how little its employees know about the law, not to mention a host of other issues. The site should be embarrassed for its ignorance. And smarter minds who would like to defend Scalia ought to distinguish these cases for me, because I think Scalia has painted himself into an uncomfortable corner of hypocrisy with these comments.

      Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:02pm

      @ABC

      You are quite possibly the dumbest person alive. You defeated your own assertion within your own argument.

      You claim that he can’t make these statements about sex discrimination because they are at odds with his earlier assertions in 1st and second amendment cases. The problem is they are not at odds, you just want to pretend they are.

      As far as I know women did indeed exist when the 14th amendment was written. If they wanted to address sex discrimination it would be in there. Women weren’t some crazy concept that nobody of the time could conceive of.

      The constitution is not a complex document and it was designed that way. There aren’t all these hidden innuendos and cryptic meanings to any of the text that social activists try to pretend are there. Anything beyond the scope of the constitution is supposed to be dealt with in the normal operation of the government by means of drafting bills and passing laws for things that need to be addressed. That’s all Scalia said. If you choose to invent things he didn‘t say and attribute assertions to him that he never made then you can claim he’s arguing any point. You don’t seem to focus on facts much for somebody that claims to be a graduate of a law school.

      Report Post »  
    • Republic Under God
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:10pm

      lol ABC got pwnd

      Report Post » Republic Under God  
    • ozz
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:22pm

      @abc Your argument is less than weak. It is devoid of logic. You compare technological advancement to social change. Your dishonesty is deplorable, but not inconsistent with the caliber of your previous posts. Scalia Judges consistent with the intentions of the founding fathers that wrote/debated/voted on the constitution. Law means what was meant when it passes, not what ever some slick lawyer/judge/politician/statist can twist it to mean. It is a shame we do not have 9 Scalias on our supreme court.

      Report Post » ozz  
    • bullcrapbuster
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:24pm

      Oh no!! ABC wrote another book. Did anyone read it??

      Report Post » bullcrapbuster  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 4:30pm

      ABC – The right to bear arms was written when there were weapons such as cannons and blunderbusses, and there was no reason to limit the right to bear arms when they existed…

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • abc
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 5:50pm

      Rowgue, thanks for the compliment. Given my native intelligence and elite educational and work background, it’s not often that I receive such an accolade. It must take skill to be in the running for dumbest person alive.

      In any case, you kind of missed the point of Scalia’s explanation in Heller. It goes on for a few pages, which makes me wonder, if constitutional interpretation is as straightforward as you claim, then why would a smart justice like Scalia spend all of that ink explaining it. And why would there be entire year-long courses on con-law and libraries filled with commentaries and scholarship on the subject. It kind of makes me think that maybe it takes years to get knowledgeable and then a lot more years to become an expert in teh subject. But there must be a lot of dumbest people alive out there, since what takes the rest of years to understand and master, you have encapsulated in a mere few sentences. I am sure that even Scalia would be jealous of your legal mind.

      The problem with what you argue, namely, that women did exist, while modern weapons and limited liability corporations did not, so there is no conflict, is simply this: corporations DID exist and had evolved up to that point, so the idea that they would continue to evolve was obvious. Yet there is no proof out there, nor offered by Scalia, to show that the framers intended free speech rights to apply to corporations of any kind. The majority opinion in Citizens United refers to a non-controlling SCOTUS justice minority opinion from the early 20th century as its only historical basis. Otherwise, it is a grounding that should make an orginalist cringe with embarrassment. As for Heller, Scalia clearly states that the judge may apply the principle of right to bear arms to future weapons, so the idea that you can apply an existing principle to a new scenario is ALLOWED under strict constructionist doctrine.

      So the question is why, as the place of women has evolved within society (like that of gays in the minds of a moderate majority of Americans), can you not apply the principle of equal protection to the new scenario (i.e., a group that has new expectations and which society has now put in a place)? The answer is that you should based upon Scalia’s thinking. Further, that he is willing to invent and assign a right to a group (corporations) that existed at the time of our country’s founding (albeit in a simpler form) but which the framers did not grant those rights to, it clearly shows that Scalia is not as consistent in his application of strict originalist thinking as he claims.

      Finally, one should carefully think through the implications of taking your side. What it means is that white men are protected in their demand for equal protection under the law by both the legislature and the court, while women and minorities only by the legislature. Why? Because of the unfortunate fact or accident of history that this country happened to write its constitution when the country was run by racist, sexist males. If that is a principled basis upon which to argue, then go for it. But I know of few people that would gladly take such a stand. There are clearly trade-offs one needs to make in order to ensure a careful, slow process of changing the laws of a country, and stability of laws is a valid goal; however, not many people would place a higher priority on that than upon equal protection under the law for all. That we now treat women and minorities the same as men is to be commended, while we should distance ourselves from our not-so-laudable prior views. Scalia’s claim (and apparently yours as well) does the exact opposite. How unfortunate!

      But what do I know? I am the dumbest person alive…

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 5:54pm

      Ozz, you forgot to address corporations. They existed, albeit in a simpler form, during the time of our country’s founding. However, the framers never accorded them free speech rights. But that didn’t stop Scalia from making that legal fiction up. Also, where in the constitution or in any prior SCOTUS rulings does it say that you can impute old principles to new circustances in th case of technological change but not societal change? And how do you differentiate the two? Wasn’t the societal changes that liberated women predicated on the technological changes that gave rise to the birth control pill, less labor intensive workplaces and the like? Just because you can find a difference between the cases doesn’t make it automatically a distinction that counts for legal purposes.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 4, 2011 at 5:55pm

      BeeKeeper, rather than making off-base points with me in this forum, you ought to go read Heller. Scalia clearly states that many arms may be properly regulated or prohibited, including the ones you name like canons, just not all of them. Your not making much sense. Really. You should go read Heller.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love