Scalia Scary!

Rana said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027240-503544.html

I don't believe this guy! I think he needs to be impeached!
Click to expand...

Hell, the "judicial activism" that was done in the Citizen's United case was enough to give the Shrub appointed clowns on the SCOTUS the boot, IMHO. But in reality, there's no one in the House or Senate with the stones or the backing to initiate such a move.

That being said, I'm constantly perplexed as to how Scalia seems to think that women and blacks are not "citizens" as mentioned in the 14th amendment. :confused:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Hell, the "judicial activism" that was done in the Citizen's United case was enough to give the Shrub appointed clowns on the SCOTUS the boot, IMHO. But in reality, there's no one in the House or Senate with the stones or the backing to initiate such a move.

That being said, I'm constantly perplexed as to how Scalia seems to think that women and blacks are not "citizens" as mentioned in the 14th amendment. :confused:
Click to expand...

Check this out...on youtube


He uses for Bush the white guy, but not women! Will Bachmann still love him?
 
Neither women nor gays are promised protection against discrimination under the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in an interview with the publication California Lawyer.
Click to expand...

What is not factually correct, Libby? :)
 
Equal Protection ClauseMain article: Equal Protection Clause

In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from juries (Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)) or discriminating against Chinese Americans in the regulation of laundry businesses (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)), as violations of the Equal Protection Clause
 
Another clue: The justice argued that "the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do... 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."
 
Dear idiot, It is illegal under the constitution to treat a citizen in a way that strips them of the right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
 
Scalia is a horrible justice and I will appuld the day he is gone.

He is an activist judge just like all you righties complain of all the time.
 
The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reached the Court. In Brown the Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional. Brown met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce Brown's mandate against repeated attempts at circumvention.[19] This resulted in the controversial desegregation busing decrees handed down by federal courts in various parts of the nation (see Milliken v. Bradley (1974)).[20] In Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Negro" and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as Mexican Americans in this case. In the half century since Brown, the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (United States v. Virginia (1996); Levy v. Louisiana (1968)).

What you and scalis try to do is to ignore the parts of the constitution you dont like.

You pretend the founders NEVER left the people in control of their own government and left them the right to adjust it to the current populations needs.


Why do you pretend that?

What do you think it gains you?
 
Not at all. If you want to amend the constitution then do so by using the amendment process. You don't get to write contrary laws with a simple majority, or reinterpret at whim.
 
Why do you think the 14 amendment does not protect women and minorities rights to equal citizenship?
 
Relax folks...put everything in context....keep everything in perspective, if you have the intelligence to do so....

This was a philosophical debate on the Constitution....it goes to intent of Amendments at the time and in the time they were written and voted on...
===========================================

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?


Read it.

http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top