Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:
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.
For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "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." That would seem to include protection against exactly the kind of discrimination to which Scalia referred.
A Supreme Court Justice has gone on record that he sees nothing in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES that protects women from discrimination.
Wrap your mind around that.
A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE says he doesn’t see protections against discrimination for women in the Constitution.
Because, what, it wasn’t ‘original intent’?
The beauty of the Constitution, which I happen to believe is the most important document written in the past 500 years, is that it lives, breathes. That is isn’t stuck back when it was written in the 1700’s.
This can't be a shock to anyone who has actually followed Scalia and his rulings.
These White folks, and the Uncle Toms that crawl up under them (that means you, Unca Clarence) just kill me with that ‘original intent’ bullshyt.
Since I know the ‘ original intent’ for my Black behind was that I was 3/5ths of a human being, let’s just say, ‘original intent’ can go take a flying leap.
Of course, in Scalia’s world, discrimination is just imagined, and if not, if you aren’t a White male , oh well, just suck it up.
They continue to be who we thought they were.
And, I continue to tell you all not to sleep on all this 14th Amendment mess about birthright citizenship. I keep on telling you – it’s not about birthright citizenship.
It’s about Brown v. Board and all law that has been decided since then, whose crux is to open this country up for ALL of its citizens.
The 14th Amendment IS the foundation for Brown v. Board, and the right wing has been after it ever since 1954.
NEVER forget that.
