Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

The "High Octane Nightmare Fuel" Award

Quote# 78590

In an interview, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia says the Constitution doesn't promise protections for women and gays.

California Lawyer asked Scalia the following question: "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?"

The ultraconservative judge replied that the Constitution doesn't require discrimination against minorities, but that it certainly doesn't prohibit it.

"Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant," Scalia said of the 14th Amendment protecting women. "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."



Antonin Scalia, http://advocate.com 62 Comments [1/7/2011 6:53:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 107
Submitted By: Aspergus
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
aaa

Why am i not surprised to find out that this man was appointed by Reagan?

1/7/2011 7:01:50 AM

Distind

Damit!

Three days ago there was a TV Tropes entry talking about how 'Some of the people quoted are in government'. Under High Octane Nightmare Fuel classification. I check to link this to it, and it's gone, edited out on the 4th.

1/7/2011 7:07:08 AM

Doubting Thomas

So if the Constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination against everyone, then what good is it? We might as well establish the Christian theocracy that the fundies want.

1/7/2011 7:07:17 AM

TGRwulf

*facepalm*

Okay, this is bad when a Supreme Court justice doesn't understand the fucking constitution.

1/7/2011 7:07:34 AM

Lucilius

Well, if you accept this, then theoretically it doesn't prohibit discrimination against tubby old Italians either. Let's see how far you want to take that, "Fat Tony."

1/7/2011 7:13:01 AM

Etiene

I'm not familiar with the wording of the amendment, but I suspect they're right that it wasn't meant to cover women and gays.

Clearly, however, that's how it should be interpreted in a civilised country. The question would seem to be whether Scalia wants to live in a civilised country.

And the answer would seem to be "No"...

1/7/2011 7:13:40 AM

Doctor Whom

I've heard this argument before, and it's nonsense. If the framers of the equal-protection clause wanted to limit it to race, why didn't they say so, as they clearly did in the 15th Amendment?

1/7/2011 7:34:50 AM

C_V


I thought the Constitution was supposed to be a "living document"? I think Scalia is living in the wrong century.

1/7/2011 7:48:39 AM



And this, my friends, is the problem with strict Constitutional originalism.

@C_V: Oh, no. Scalia’s an Originalist. He knows, you see, that the people who wrote the Constitution were totally omniscient.

Which is why it’s been amended 27 times over.

1/7/2011 7:53:31 AM

Murdin

@Distind : that's because FSTDT Nightmare Fuel now has its own dedicated page. It only waits to be filled with this kind of quotes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/HighOctaneNightmareFuel/FSTDT

And yes, Ronald E. "Evil" Williams is already there.

1/7/2011 8:05:28 AM

Distind

@Murdin

Oh holy shit, that's awesome.

1/7/2011 8:14:28 AM

Anon-e-moose

"In an interview, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia says the Constitution doesn't promise protections for women and gays."

Makes you wonder how he got to that lofty & august body, if he knows nothing about the very basis of US law: the Constitution.

Oh wait...

@aaa

"Why am i not surprised to find out that this man was appointed by Reagan?"

Judge Vaughn Walker was initially nominated by Ronnie Raygun, but was successfully opposed by a group of Democrat senators led by Nancy Pelosi; several tears later, he was personally appointed by Bush I. Judge Walker overturned Prop. 8 last year.

And of course, John E. Jones III was personally appointed by Dumbya in 2002. Three years later, his decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and the precedent set, resulted in the final nail in the coffin in the whole Creation (via 'I.D.') vs. Evolution debate. Judge Jones is a Conservative Christian, appointed by a Conservative Christian who believes in Creationism; in turn voted in by the Religious Right.

Moral: Irony. It can be such a bitch, eh?

All it takes is a lawyer, well-versed in Constitutional law to prove him wrong. Not even the likes of you, Scalia, are above the law. Four Letters, pal: A.C.L.U.

I'm not a legal expert (nor even a citizen of the USA), yet even I know about the first part of the 14th Amendment:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

The fact that so many people outside the US know more about the very basis of that country than a sizeable proportion of those in the US, says so much about those specific people of that country.

1/7/2011 8:15:34 AM

Mister Spak

What did he say about discrimination against italians?

1/7/2011 8:20:18 AM

practical god

Oh, this is standard Antonin fare. He makes these sorts of arguments all the time. Which is not to say that he wants to be uncivilized; he just has a very "this is this, and that is that" approach. His general stance is "the constitution when written meant 'blah' and so we shouldn't interpret it to fit new-ish circumstances; we should instead make up new laws to fit those circumstances if we want."

1/7/2011 8:20:54 AM

DevilsChaplain

Please just kick the bucket already...

1/7/2011 9:16:06 AM

Imroy

This is from the same asshat that thinks crosses in cemeteries aren't religious symbols.

1/7/2011 9:53:31 AM

Horsefeathers

"In an interview, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia says the Constitution doesn't promise protections for women and gays."

See, this is what's wrong with that whole "get the job for life" idea.

"The ultraconservative judge replied that the Constitution doesn't require discrimination against minorities, but that it certainly doesn't prohibit it."

Oh, well then. As long as it doesn't require it or anything I guess it's ok.

""Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant," Scalia said of the 14th Amendment protecting women. "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.""

Of which you appear to be surprisingly uninformed of given your position. Keep this shit up and you'll be the first Justice removed from the position for incompetence.

1/7/2011 10:26:58 AM

shadkat

What.

No. Just no.

1/7/2011 10:29:22 AM



Excuse me, if it doesn't guarantee protection, why on earth it's called AMMENDMENT?, because it has ammended something that wasn't before..........anyway.

1/7/2011 10:30:16 AM

Headache

Scalia - a FASCIST on the US supreme court - not surprising in a fascist country!

1/7/2011 11:06:50 AM

DevilsChaplain

"...not surprising in a fascist country!"

Headache Doesn't Know What the Fuck He/She's Talking About Part 3052.

1/7/2011 11:10:51 AM

Lotus-thing

Whenever I see things like this coming out of the people running the show, I want to cry.

That's why I don't watch thee news very much, you know. I'd be a lot more depressed if I did.

1/7/2011 11:16:28 AM



It's just conservative judiciary taken to the extreme. Not that that excuses the bigotry in any way. But judicially speaking, he's sort of right in a way.

1/7/2011 11:46:32 AM

Brendan Rizzo

UWAAAAAAAAAAAA?

So, to Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, you now know that your coworker believes that you are not guaranteed rights. Are you going to take that?!

Die, Scalia. You are the last relic of the Reagan administration, anyway. Go back to the Dark Ages where you belong. You do realize that when the Constitution was written the Framers had no problem with slavery, right? Do you seriously think that the southern states should be allowed to reinstitute slavery if they wanted to?

1/7/2011 11:52:07 AM

dionysus

The Constitution also didn't originally say that slavery is bad. So what? That's what we have amendments for. The founding fathers had enough foresight to know that the issues of the day would change and they were smart enough not to set themselves up as infallible authorities. The letter of the Constitution may not have had equal rights for women, gays, and blacks but the spirit of the Constitution is and has always been a spirit of freedom and justice and anything that expands freedom and justice rather than contracting them fits with the spirit of the Constitution.

@Headache

Scalia - a FASCIST on the US supreme court - not surprising in a fascist country!

Are you taking brain inhibitor pills or something? Since when is the US anything near fascism? Yeah, there are a lot of ultra-conservatives, some of them in government but guess what? We're still winning major victories for equality despite them and last time I checked the country was still a democracy. Everyone still gets to vote and we aren't killing off minorities or people that disagree with the government. Hell, an entire "news" organization called Fox has been talking shit about the president the entire time he's been in office and yet they haven't been arrested or killed. It sounds to me like you A) Don't know jack shit about the US B) Don't know jack shit about fascism or C) Just plain don't know jack shit.

1/7/2011 12:18:16 PM
1 2 3