Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on WomenFollow

In an interview with California Lawyer, Scalia said that the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination. Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.

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.

Also, he said New York pizza was the best. Obviously a nutcase.

Elinda,
Where would liberalism be without a few whacked out judges imposing their beliefs on the masses.

Who has the best pizza in Chicago?

The women would be tatting your linens and the black man would be shining your shoes picking your cotton.

....ahhhh, the good old days.

The women would be tatting your linens and the black man would be shining your shoes.

Except that the gains in those areas largely did not come about as a result of court rulings.

You mean aside from the legal challenges which were won on the basis of the court's reading of the 14th amendment. Such as, say, Brown v. Board of Education or United States v. Virginia.

The rulings didn't create the law upon which the changes were based.

Didn't claim they did. I said that they were important towards establishing equal rights.

Especially in the face of chucklenuts like Scalia who think women don't count as "any person" under the equal rights clause.

No they weren't.

I'd have to see a bit more context for his statements, but I suspect that his words are being misinterpreted. In fact, I'd bet on it. Do you honestly think he doesn't believe that women count as "any person"? Don't you ever stop to examine how absurd your own claims are?

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.