Scalia: “Yes you can discriminate against women…”

Posted on by

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave another interview that continued to show how much of an ass he really is and made me wonder why he hasn’t been retired yet. He is yet another conservative that is hypocrisy personified.

In a recent interview Scalia actually said:

“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.”

The Originalist

The problem is the 14th amendment isn’t as open as Scalia thinks:

“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.”

Just like if Congress intended God to be in the Constitution it would have put Him in it, probably in 1868 the men who wrote the amendment weren’t thinking of women but don’t you think that if women were not to be protected they would’ve written “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of male citizens of the United States…”

Scalia’s Archie Bunker mentality was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1971 which confirmed women were equally protected.

It’s nice that Scalia falls back on his original intent doctrine but fails to remember that judicial review of laws isn’t specifically in the Constitution and I doubt the framers thought corporations are people covered by the Bill of Rights either.


Comments for this post are closed. If you wish to send a note to the editor, visit our contact form