Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Silly Constitution, Women Aren't Human Beings

Scalia is amazing:
WASHINGTON -- 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, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:
I guess I always kind of assumed he had views like this, but nice that it's out there in the open.


  1. This is way we need to pass the ERA, and for anyone silly enough not to believe we need it look no further than the Supreme Court. Thanks Scalia, I don't think you count as a person either.

  2. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. "

    Yeah, I think he might need to give that another read. Because by my interpretation, ALL PERSONS pretty explicitly includes LGBT individuals and women. And, well, everyone else ever... except maybe him, what with him being a jackass. After all, jackasses aren't people; they're donkeys.

    ps. The title confuses me. If he wanted to say it doesn't guarantee equal protection to women, he should have said "sex" rather than "gender". As it stands, "on the basis of gender or sexual orientation" makes it sound like he's just making sure he covers the "T" out of "LGBT". But then, he could just be using the term wrong... that's certainly possible. Silly non-science people and their imprecise use of language.
    He's a jackass either way, mind you. Just in the one case he also doesn't even know what he's saying

  3. I'm pretty sure for Justice Scalia sex and gender are the same, and it is whatever you were born as. I strongly dislike this man.

  4. Aw hell, I have more to add.

    if "Equal protection" does not prohibit "discrimination" on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, then it just plain doesn't prohibit discrimination. Based on anything. It makes no specific mention of criteria by which "all persons" might be divided into such categories, so clearly discrimination based on anything I can think of is acceptable.

    For example, if congress were to make a law saying that republicans can't be appointed to public office - like say, as a judge - that would be just fine by Scalia's logic. Similarly, people registered to vote with the republican party could be paid less, be prohibited from marrying, denied access to public schools or other state institutions, etc. Just so long as at some point in the indefinite future the democratic party holds the super-majority required to pass such laws. And feel like being dicks.

    I wonder if he still likes this idea.

  5. Democrats will never behave like dicks to anyone who isn't a member of their own party, nice thought though.

  6. ... a depressingly valid point.

  7. I wondered for a moment whether it was just that he didn't consider women citizens, but on closer inspection of the text it's clear that, yup, he actually does not think that women count as people.