LJ: you are not covered by the constitution
...Unless you are male and straight, according to someone who has a seat on the highest court in the United States.
Constitution does not ban sex bias, Scalia says
Justice Antonio Scalia repeatedly insists that the "original" intention of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to black men. He almost, ALMOST makes it sound rational:The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court's conservative wing, is also its most outspoken advocate of "originalism," the doctrine that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of those who drafted it.
The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.
"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."
Ah! So all we'd need to do is tack on another constitutional amendment for us wimmen folk and toss in a few more for the queers and he'll be happy. But one suspects there are, shall we say, issues:... when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against "a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
Off the rails there a wee bit? Just a little.
In any case, I'm bemused at how he goes from being the court's "most outspoken advocate of 'originalism'" to saying "he's not a purist and is generally willing to accept long-standing court precedents that contradict his views." Oh, well then. That's okay. Oh, wait:One exception, he said, is abortion, in which he continues to advocate overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and later rulings that have narrowed but not eliminated the constitutional right to terminate one's pregnancy.
Picking and choosing just a bit there, are we? Isn't this rather like being just "a little bit pregnant"? Why respect one long standing court precedent but not another? Because you don't like it?
Yeah. This guy sits on the highest court in this country, and does not think I, as a woman and as a queer, am afforded the protection of the Constitution.
I'm beginning to wonder if I'd also need a constitutional amendment for deaf people, just to be sure to cover all bases. (The rest of you, you'll need to work on your own specific amendments.)
Meanwhile, in Citizens United v. FEC, a corporation is adjudged a person and therefore falling under Constitutional protection. Because Mr. Originalist Judge interpreted it that way.
Constitution does not ban sex bias, Scalia says
Justice Antonio Scalia repeatedly insists that the "original" intention of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to black men. He almost, ALMOST makes it sound rational:The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court's conservative wing, is also its most outspoken advocate of "originalism," the doctrine that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of those who drafted it.
The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.
"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."
Ah! So all we'd need to do is tack on another constitutional amendment for us wimmen folk and toss in a few more for the queers and he'll be happy. But one suspects there are, shall we say, issues:... when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against "a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
Off the rails there a wee bit? Just a little.
In any case, I'm bemused at how he goes from being the court's "most outspoken advocate of 'originalism'" to saying "he's not a purist and is generally willing to accept long-standing court precedents that contradict his views." Oh, well then. That's okay. Oh, wait:One exception, he said, is abortion, in which he continues to advocate overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision and later rulings that have narrowed but not eliminated the constitutional right to terminate one's pregnancy.
Picking and choosing just a bit there, are we? Isn't this rather like being just "a little bit pregnant"? Why respect one long standing court precedent but not another? Because you don't like it?
Yeah. This guy sits on the highest court in this country, and does not think I, as a woman and as a queer, am afforded the protection of the Constitution.
I'm beginning to wonder if I'd also need a constitutional amendment for deaf people, just to be sure to cover all bases. (The rest of you, you'll need to work on your own specific amendments.)
Meanwhile, in Citizens United v. FEC, a corporation is adjudged a person and therefore falling under Constitutional protection. Because Mr. Originalist Judge interpreted it that way.