Thursday, January 6, 2011

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Twists the 14th Amendment

Supreme Court Justice Scalia is not able to understand the  Constitution. He is what is considered a constitutional originalist. First,  look at the language of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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.
Now consider these comments in an interview:

Massey: 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?
Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. 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.
This is disturbing. This is a completely twisted point of view. I am speechless.

1 comment:

  1. I hope that the other Justices are not as bizarre as Scalia. His comment implies that the popular vote can bring back slavery, discrimination against women and repeal the rights of minority members. I think the framers of the Constitution got it right when they said "any person" instead of "white male".