The Ladies' Man
Justice Scalia just gets more and more charming. What's SCOTUS's cuddliest creep's latest? "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." How's that for a come-on line?
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex," Nino told California Lawyer magazine with chagrin. "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."And that's just foreplay, ladies...
"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."
The terms used in the Amendment are "citizens of the United States" and "any person". Both terms are gender-neutral and the last time I checked, women were certifiably citizens and persons. I'm not a lawyer, of course, let alone a Constitutional lawyer BUT it seems to me that unless Mr. Justice Scalia proposes to strip women of both citizenship and personhood (which is certainly possible given the reduced status women have in the eyes of the Republican Party and its major religious supporters, right-wing Christianity and the Catholic Church) women are covered by that wording. Oh, and hey in case he hasn't noticed, gays and lesbians are ALSO persons and citizens, at least we have all the legal and tax OBLIGATIONS of American citizens, just not all the rights.
Mr. Justice Scalia needs to check his personal bigotries at the Supreme Court's cloakroom.
Reply to this
The comment I initially was too much a reflection of Anton Scalia's personality. So I will simply say that I believe the Supreme Court will benefit greatly if and when he resigns. If he does not resign then I hope that the newest members of the court will with gentleness and kindness be a pain in his butt for the duration of his service on the court.
I believe that he is a nasty mean-spirited man whose sense of superiority is hubristic. The saddest thing is that he has encased himself in such a hard and dense wall of separation from the rest of society that he probably never will be able to step out of his adamantine shell to understand how much harm he has caused over the years.
Reply to this
Thinking about the particulars of his remarks makes me think of a couple of other things. First is that people with the spiritual disease afflicting Anton occasionally speak truth without realizing it.
His remark "It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society" is telling. First there are two justices who have barely gotten their feet wet. So I think that Anton is actually but indirectly addressing himself and admitting how he views himself.
Second is that he is telegraphing the country exactly how he will rule when the California marriage case reaches the Supreme Court.
Third is that he wants to set himself up for a battle royal with the Courts women justices.
Fourth and this really is a repeat of item two is that Anton is just tired and wants to retire but is scared to admit it. He knows that his approach to the Constitution and law in general is flawed. While he is technically correct that the 14th amendment never addressed sexual orientation he is utterly wrong when when he claims that only a flat, literal narrow understanding of the Constitution is correct. The Constitution, as eloquently stated by probably the most important Chief Justice to date, Justice Marshall, is a limited document that broadly sets out the structure and responsibilities of federal government and its relations to its constituents of both states and citizens. It is not law and was never intended to be limited and specific as law is. The Constitution was written to be broad in its application and interpreted in its use.
Of course that could still mean that the Constitution would in fact allow things such as discrimination. However the Constitution provides the guidance in determining whether something such as discrimination would be allowed (in spite of the original 3/5ths issue and slavery).
The Constitution is biased toward ideas such as distribution of power, the belief that individuals have rights which precede government and Constitutions, and that there are fundamental rights to, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the fundamental pillars upon which the Constitution was written and upon which the United States has evolved for two hundred years. Being unable to recognize this fundamental truth as to the nature of the Constitution, and devolving in his comprehension of the nature of law in this nation, says to me that Anton is, in simple words, loosing it.
The weight of his fears, insecurities, guilt for wrongs committed, probable shame for the things that he hides, all are wearing him down so that his mind and spirit will shrink until all that remains will be a hulk of anger and rage.
Reply to this