Scalia - Women are not persons

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court in 1971 Reed v. Reed disagreed with you and found that laws solely based on gender discrimination violated the Equal Rights Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court upheld this again and again, such as in the 1973 case Fronterio v. Richardson finding that
[T]he sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. As a result, statutory distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its individual members.

Scalia is wrong and you are wrong.

I'll say it one more time... The constitution forbids inequity in legislation. If a law says "Males must be preferred to females in appointing an administrator", that is obviously an inequity in the legislation and is against the constitution.

Scalia isn't talking about cases of inequality in legislation. If you read the entire article, it's pretty obvious he's talking about discrimination by a private entity, which is not addressed in the constitution. He means that separate legislation needs to be passed to address discrimination BY A PRIVATE ENTITY.

The article points out that Scalia is an originalist - one who believes in a static constitutional interpretation surrounded by legislation reflecting the beliefs of current society rather than an evolutionist - one who believes the constitution should be interpreted in different ways according to the beliefs of current society. In his view, the constitution doesn't say "Virginia Military Institute has to allow women", but you're free to pass legislation that says that.

His view restricts activism on the part of those sitting on the bench, and places that power in the hands of the legislative branch where it belongs.

Nobody that matters wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court in 1971 Reed v. Reed disagreed with you and found that laws solely based on gender discrimination violated the Equal Rights Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court upheld this again and again, such as in the 1973 case Fronterio v. Richardson finding that
[T]he sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. As a result, statutory distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its individual members.

Scalia is wrong and you are wrong.

I'll say it one more time... The constitution forbids inequity in legislation. If a law says "Males must be preferred to females in appointing an administrator", that is obviously an inequity in the legislation and is against the constitution.

Scalia isn't talking about cases of inequality in legislation. If you read the entire article, it's pretty obvious he's talking about discrimination by a private entity, which is not addressed in the constitution. He means that separate legislation needs to be passed to address discrimination BY A PRIVATE ENTITY.

The article points out that Scalia is an originalist - one who believes in a static constitutional interpretation surrounded by legislation reflecting the beliefs of current society rather than an evolutionist - one who believes the constitution should be interpreted in different ways according to the beliefs of current society. In his view, the constitution doesn't say "Virginia Military Institute has to allow women", but you're free to pass legislation that says that.

His view restricts activism on the part of those sitting on the bench, and places that power in the hands of the legislative branch where it belongs.

Your statement is entirely false. Scalia does not mention private entities. Here, once again, is his statement:

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't

Scalia takes the singular view that the 14th Amendment does not extend equal protection of the laws to women, even though the 14th amendment clearly refers to "persons". It is his view that the legislatures could provide legislation that discriminates based on sex, even though numerous Supreme Court and lower courts have decided just the opposite.

Perhaps you would be so kind to point out the reference in the article that Scalia makes in regard to discrimination by PRIVATE ENTITIES.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Your statement is entirely false. Scalia does not mention private entities. Here, once again, is his statement:

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't

Scalia takes the singular view that the 14th Amendment does not extend equal protection of the laws to women, even though the 14th amendment clearly refers to "persons". It is his view that the legislatures could provide legislation that discriminates based on sex, even though numerous Supreme Court and lower courts have decided just the opposite.

Perhaps you would be so kind to point out the reference in the article that Scalia makes in regard to discrimination by PRIVATE ENTITIES.

The difference we're having is that I'm working from a premise that in order to get on the supreme court, Scalia had to have a modicum of common sense and intelligence. For him to propose that the constitution doesn't restrict the government from passing a law that says "women are second class citizens and belong to men" is ridiculous.

You, on the other hand are basing your opinion on the worst possible interpretation of Scalia's words by including that which is ruled out by a simple application of common sense in order to be able to argue that a supreme court judge called women sub-human.

We're obviously not going to meet in the middle on this. I still contend that Scalia's right - in a strictly originalist point of view which is what he was referring to in the interview. I'd also like to point out that I agree with him when he stated "Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination. That's a modern invention. There are those that think it shouldn't exist and of course it shouldn't exist. But you don't need the constitution - you don't have to distort the constitution to achieve that result".

If you want the full context rather than just snips and pieces, watch the interview. It's interesting - and it's an acedemic discussion. http://www.uchastings.edu/legally-speaking/scalia.html The quote I just typed is at 38:44. It was overlooked by most of the outraged blogs.

So you agree that your original statement was false, that Scalia was not referring to private entities and did follow the view point that women are not protected from discrimination by the Equal Protection clause.

I am not "basing your opinion on the worst possible interpretation of Scalia's words by including that which is ruled out by a simple application of common sense in order to be able to argue that a supreme court judge called women sub-human." Where have I referenced that Scalia called women sub-human". I did state that Scalia does not categorize women under the term "persons" under the 14th Amendment, which certainly is not an application of common sense in my view point. What I did base my opinion on were the actual words by Scalia.

There is not a middle ground to meet, since I am coming from the actual facts of what was stated, and you are using misleading statements and outright falsehoods. As I have pointed out, nowhere does Scalia discuss the lack of application of the Constitution to private entities in regard to the 14th amendment and discrimination which you asserted.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So you agree that your original statement was false, that Scalia was not referring to private entities and did follow the view point that women are not protected from discrimination by the Equal Protection clause.

I am not "basing your opinion on the worst possible interpretation of Scalia's words by including that which is ruled out by a simple application of common sense in order to be able to argue that a supreme court judge called women sub-human." Where have I referenced that Scalia called women sub-human". I did state that Scalia does not categorize women under the term "persons" under the 14th Amendment, which certainly is not an application of common sense in my view point. What I did base my opinion on were the actual words by Scalia.

There is not a middle ground to meet, since I am coming from the actual facts of what was stated, and you are using misleading statements and outright falsehoods. As I have pointed out, nowhere does Scalia discuss the lack of application of the Constitution to private entities in regard to the 14th amendment and discrimination which you asserted.

I give. You're absolutely correct. Everything you've posted is absolute fact. There can be no other interpretation or difference in thought. The coin only has one side and it's got your picture on it.

Nobody that matters....I'm sure you realize that Something the Dog Said has a specific bone to pick. Every story is positioned in such a way to slam a conservative or republican. Not once have I seen a post that does exactly the same to a democrat, or democrat appointee. Partisan in the worst way....you won't win an argument, because Something won't concede any points at all....

RenegadeCJ wrote: Nobody that matters....I'm sure you realize that Something the Dog Said has a specific bone to pick. Every story is positioned in such a way to slam a conservative or republican. Not once have I seen a post that does exactly the same to a democrat, or democrat appointee. Partisan in the worst way....you won't win an argument, because Something won't concede any points at all....

That's the way things are in every thread no matter which side started it.......conservatives only bash liberals and vice versa. It is indeed partisan in the worst way.......we look for our differences not what we may have in common. Rather sad that this is the way our government handles differences too.....and it has spilled over to the nation at large. We are no longer Americans, we are now liberal or conservative Americans and never the twain shall meet until we start working together rather than tearing each other apart.

I think it is a matter of pride on both sides....never, ever, admit that someone on your side is wrong, be it a public figure or a local poster.

RenegadeCJ wrote: Nobody that matters....I'm sure you realize that Something the Dog Said has a specific bone to pick. Every story is positioned in such a way to slam a conservative or republican. Not once have I seen a post that does exactly the same to a democrat, or democrat appointee. Partisan in the worst way....you won't win an argument, because Something won't concede any points at all....

Yeah, I get that now. It wasn't a waste of time tho - I enjoyed the video, Scalia can be pretty entertaining.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Scalia is wrong and you are wrong.

Not surprisingly, it is you that is wrong here. The Constitution has no say in whether or not one decides to hire a woman to work for their company. If I decide that I don't want to hire a woman, for whatever reason, I am free to exercise that discrimination and hire whomever I decide to hire for the position. I can do the same for any member of any sub group whether it is race, sexual orientation, color of hair, weight, or religious affiliation. The Constitution says nothing about who I must hire, that decision is left up to me as the person responsible for filling the job openings at the company. Now, it might be a foolish decision to not employ a woman who could fill the requirements of the job better than any of the men that applied, but applying for the job does not mandate that a woman be hired to fill the position, or a black, or a homosexual, or a Catholic, or a redhead. The Constitution does not give you the right to work for any company Dog. Simple as that. If I am the owner of the business and I don't want women in the workplace, guess what, there will be no women working here and there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents my discriminating against them in that manner. It's called freedom of association, something that the Constitution does protect. Neither government nor individual can tell me with whom I must associate.

Not surprisingly, I am correct. The 14th Amendment, and in particular the Equal Protection clause, ensures that all persons are entitled to equal protections under the law. This has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court and lower courts to ensure that women may not be discriminated against based on their gender. Despite what Scalia says, legislatures may not pass laws that discriminate based on sex.

Nowhere have I stated that the 14th Amendment applies to the hiring practices of private businesses. My disgust with Scalia's viewpoint is directed to his views that the 14th Amendment does not apply to laws discriminating against portions of the American public, that the definition of "persons" does not apply to protect women from discriminatory laws.