quote:

Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination.

Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

But Justice Scalia's attack on the constitutional rights of women - and of gays, whom he also brushed off - is not just his usual mouthing off. One of his colleagues on the nation's highest court, Justice Stephen Breyer, has just come out with a book called Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View, which rightly argues that the Constitution is a living document - one that the founders intended to grow over time, to keep up with new events. Justice Scalia is roaring back in defense of "originalism," his view that the Constitution is stuck in the meaning it had when it was written in the 18th century.

Indeed, Justice Scalia likes to present his views as highly principled - he's not against equal rights for women or anyone else; he's just giving the Constitution the strict interpretation it must be given. He focuses on the fact that the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War to help lift up freed slaves to equality. "Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he told his audience. (See "The State of the American Woman.")

Yet, the idea that women are protected by the equal-protection clause is hardly new - or controversial. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection - or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights

quote:

Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination.

Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

But Justice Scalia's attack on the constitutional rights of women - and of gays, whom he also brushed off - is not just his usual mouthing off. One of his colleagues on the nation's highest court, Justice Stephen Breyer, has just come out with a book called Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View, which rightly argues that the Constitution is a living document - one that the founders intended to grow over time, to keep up with new events. Justice Scalia is roaring back in defense of "originalism," his view that the Constitution is stuck in the meaning it had when it was written in the 18th century.

Indeed, Justice Scalia likes to present his views as highly principled - he's not against equal rights for women or anyone else; he's just giving the Constitution the strict interpretation it must be given. He focuses on the fact that the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War to help lift up freed slaves to equality. "Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he told his audience. (See "The State of the American Woman.")

Yet, the idea that women are protected by the equal-protection clause is hardly new - or controversial. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection - or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so.

Too bad we cant fire them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

If the Constitution should is not a living document, why have we ever needed and amendments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: peacefulplace

What is WRONG with Scalia? Barely a century ago, he'd have been just another wop in this country. The U.S. Constitution is the greatest governing document ever written. That most definitely does not mean that, because the men who wrote it were unenlightened about the fact that women and gays are most definitely people deserving of the same rights as white men, do not deserve said rights.

Scalia is an ass who should try to be more of a wise Latina and imagine what it must be like to, say, have someone attribute your mood to "being on the rag." But I suppose it's his patriarchy, and he'll work to preserve it!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights

quote:

Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination.

Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

But Justice Scalia's attack on the constitutional rights of women - and of gays, whom he also brushed off - is not just his usual mouthing off. One of his colleagues on the nation's highest court, Justice Stephen Breyer, has just come out with a book called Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View, which rightly argues that the Constitution is a living document - one that the founders intended to grow over time, to keep up with new events. Justice Scalia is roaring back in defense of "originalism," his view that the Constitution is stuck in the meaning it had when it was written in the 18th century.

Indeed, Justice Scalia likes to present his views as highly principled - he's not against equal rights for women or anyone else; he's just giving the Constitution the strict interpretation it must be given. He focuses on the fact that the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War to help lift up freed slaves to equality. "Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he told his audience. (See "The State of the American Woman.")

Yet, the idea that women are protected by the equal-protection clause is hardly new - or controversial. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection - or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so.

Too bad we cant fire them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

And there is one idiotic post form a Fat something or other

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights

quote:

Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination.

Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

But Justice Scalia's attack on the constitutional rights of women - and of gays, whom he also brushed off - is not just his usual mouthing off. One of his colleagues on the nation's highest court, Justice Stephen Breyer, has just come out with a book called Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View, which rightly argues that the Constitution is a living document - one that the founders intended to grow over time, to keep up with new events. Justice Scalia is roaring back in defense of "originalism," his view that the Constitution is stuck in the meaning it had when it was written in the 18th century.

Indeed, Justice Scalia likes to present his views as highly principled - he's not against equal rights for women or anyone else; he's just giving the Constitution the strict interpretation it must be given. He focuses on the fact that the 14th Amendment was drafted after the Civil War to help lift up freed slaves to equality. "Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he told his audience. (See "The State of the American Woman.")

Yet, the idea that women are protected by the equal-protection clause is hardly new - or controversial. In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection - or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so.

Too bad we cant fire them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I saw this today, and wondered who would post this bit of hackery, Tazzy. I wasn't expecting it to be you. First, we have just the tone Time decided to take. A Justice of the United States Supreme Court is "mouthing off?" What page of the NYT Handbook of Style is that from?

Then there is just the sheer double standard in play. Last week, Justice Breyer, out promoting the same book Time throws a plug to, suggested that the First Amendment might not allow the free expression of Koran burning. Where was the snotty indignation to that? Seriously!

Farther on in the article is the rather interesting assertion by the author that the Framers, "were trying to help black people achieve equality." I guess this asshole missed the 3/5ths compromise, huh?

Scalia probably had all the makings of an excellent, thought provoking discussion, for scholars and the interested. We won't be getting any of that based on this article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

There is legal and proper discrimination everywhere tazzy...

A 4'11" asian woman cannot play in the NBA

A 5' 9" 369lb white male cannot be a state trooper

An elected white Congressman representing a minority district cannot be a full member of the Congressional Black Caucus

Male reporters are not allowed in WTA locker rooms...

White Europeans are are barred from minority scholarships.

There are ZERO blind fighter pilots...