Liberal bogeymen
Justice Scalia is apparently the latest liberal bogeyman. In a recent interview he voiced an opinion about how not every social problem requires a Constitutional remedy.
The left is trying to spin his answer as meaning women and gays (and minorities and the elderly and children and partridges in pear trees) don't deserve (equal) rights.
Seriously?
The interview is quite clear:
You believe in an enduring constitution rather than an evolving constitution. What does that mean to you?
In its most important aspects, the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do. It is a decision that the society has made that in order to take certain actions, you need the extraordinary effort that it takes to amend the Constitution. Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad-such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws-if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today's society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual, it means nothing except, "To thine own self be true."
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.
Clearly, at no point does Justice Scalia say that people don't deserve (equal) rights. He says that not every issue requires a trip to the Supreme Court to be decided by nine justices. And he's right! (Note also it's the interviewer who brings up sexual (gender) discrimination and sexual orientation as examples, not Scalia.)
Funny how the left has been arguing for years that they don't have to change the Constitution when it says something they don't agree with (like the right to keep and bear arms) yet when someone they don't like says that not everything has to be decided by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional issue they act like someone is killing puppies.
The left is trying to spin his answer as meaning women and gays (and minorities and the elderly and children and partridges in pear trees) don't deserve (equal) rights.
Seriously?
The interview is quite clear:
You believe in an enduring constitution rather than an evolving constitution. What does that mean to you?
In its most important aspects, the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do. It is a decision that the society has made that in order to take certain actions, you need the extraordinary effort that it takes to amend the Constitution. Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad-such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws-if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today's society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual, it means nothing except, "To thine own self be true."
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.
Clearly, at no point does Justice Scalia say that people don't deserve (equal) rights. He says that not every issue requires a trip to the Supreme Court to be decided by nine justices. And he's right! (Note also it's the interviewer who brings up sexual (gender) discrimination and sexual orientation as examples, not Scalia.)
Funny how the left has been arguing for years that they don't have to change the Constitution when it says something they don't agree with (like the right to keep and bear arms) yet when someone they don't like says that not everything has to be decided by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional issue they act like someone is killing puppies.