Scalia - women have no rights in the constitution

This repeats part of what I read on-line from the Madison paper when Scalia spoke at Marquette and the U of WI in March 2001.

....

"A dead Constitution--that's what I'm selling," Scalia told a closed audience at the University of Wisconsin Law School on March 15. He said his mission was to persuade them "to love a dead Constitution."

According to the Capital Times coverage, Scalia hinted that he would not find a constitutional right to women's suffrage under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, saying only the 19th amendment passed in 1920 provided that right. Scalia added:

"If you don't like the white males, persuade the people and lead a revolution. And you'll get beat, too."

Scalia calls himself an "originalist" or "textualist," saying judges must preserve the original meaning of the two-centuries-old Constitution. The Constitution provides no right to die, no right to an abortion, and no ban on the death penalty, he said. By implication he appears to believe there is no constitutional right to contraception.

more...

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/april01/scalia.html

But then he doesn't consider the Amendments to be part of the Constitution. Someone invent a time machine so he can live in the era he prefers.

He's another piece of human garbage that's in the NRA's pocket.

Fuckin hypocrite. :wtf:

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. He's saying the 14th should not be stretched to give it.

It's a moot point since the 19th was passed, but the question is, if there was no 19th Amendment, coud the 14th Amendment be interpreted to give women the right to vote. He said no.

I would agree with him. If the amendment writers wanted the 14th Amendment to include a women's right to vote, they would have clearly written it in. They did write the 15th Amendment clear as can be just a year later to give AA men the right to vote, so I think the intent of not giving women the right to vote until the 19th is pretty clear cut.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Elect Bush and we'll have a Supreme Court filled with these American Haters!!!!

:scared:

Scalia seemed to dismiss the broad liberties provided in the Bill of Rights: "The majority wins. If you don't believe that, you don't believe in democracy."

The majority getting to do whatever it wants is the very nature of anarchy.

although to be more specific it is a tyranny of the majority..Wait, that is anarchy. Never mind, you called it right. Scalia has said many times that he hates democracy. Apparently he has no love for republican government either.

nt

dealing with. Balancing the power of government with the power of masses. Preventing the tyranny of a majority over a minority. They argued over these things. The structure of the constitution was the outcome ... the whole system of checks and balances. Uh, has Scalia ever read anything by Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Franklin?

and the nature of Democracy was the majority getting to do whatever it wants.

what he says at public speaking events when he has federal marshals destroy the recordings?!

That we shouldn't amend or the amendments shouldn't make changes even though the amendment mechanism was deliberately provided for such changes?

The Founding Fathers knew they weren't covering everything so they gave us a way to deal with it. That doesn't kill the constitution, it makes it immortal.

that the constitution should be changed through the amendment process, not by reinterpretation of extant language.

For instance, if you want women to vote, you should pass the 19th Amendment, not reinterpret the 14th.

He'd have to recuse himself from a LOT of cases. (I remain convinced that the only reason he recused himself from the "under god" case was because of his recorded speech about Christianity being the "foundation" of the constitution and that the 9th circuit decided the case wrong.)

**edited to close paren and add the bit about the 9th Circuit**

What's the damn point of having amendments added to it then? If we're supposed to obey what's on a disintegrating antideluvian piece of paper...

This bozo helped murder it on 12 December 2000. He's as despicable as the rest of the ungodly creatures occupying the White House and his staff...

Let him sell it to the used car dealer across the street.

'nuff said. x(

Edit: Toned down naughty language, just a tad... Not easy to do.

document and shouldn't be amended, according to the conservatives. Unless, of course, you need to amend it stop the biggest threat to our civilization, gay marriage. Then it's a living document and should be changed to fit the times.

without setting any precidents, circa December 2000.

Why are all these fundie wackos - YES, TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ALWAYS RUSHING TO THESE IDIOTS DEFENCE - THEY ARE FUNDIE WACKOS! - crawling out from under their rocks on "good "friday"? Is it just cooincidence?

The complaint is changing the constitution without amendments.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


That pretty clearly states the bill of rights is not a closed document.

...especially the mechanism for amending it as the times change.

Dead letter literalists have no place in the halls of power, and one who would deny citizenship to more than half the people in this country is the deadly enemy of all of us.

Why is this man still on the bench? He should have been impeached for his failure to recuse himself during the 2000 elections fiasco; he's given ample additional grounds since then. He is clearly NOT a constitutional scholar, NOT a patriotic American, and NOT fit to judge a traffic ticket!

He's not saying that the Constitution should never be amended. He's saying that we should read the Constitution with "original intent" in mind and interpret that way always until a new Amendment is made.

Obviously, this view is full of shit, but it at least has the benefit of being within the bounds of the Constitution.

????


:wtf:

There is nothing in the Constitution's text that gives the Supreme Court the right to decide a contested Presidential election. The Constitution explicitly leaves that to the House of Representatives.

Yet Scalia led the charge to let the Supreme Court take over instead.

:grr:

Peter

(The headline is misleading because the 19th Amendment is part of the Constitution and Scalia is clearly aware of the intent of that.)

to preserve our rights. Because we are half of the population, it would be hard for any rights to be taken away from us, even if every male in the country turned against us, if we stick together as a cohesive unit.

insane. (I tried various words for insane but that's how I feel. If * wins, we are doomed.)

Something I've heard often (saw it in a thread here recently) is that there's a miniscule chance abortion rights will ever be ended, since this most conservative of Supreme Courts hasn't outlawed it. The recently publicly available papers of Justice Blackmun has this:

Blackmun was convinced that Roe was doomed when a court majority led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist appeared ready to effectively overrule Roe and had a draft opinion already in hand. The day was saved, from Blackmun's point of view, by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter, who worked successfully behind the scenes to help persuade an anguished Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to abandon the Rehnquist majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Blackmun retained the note Kennedy sent him to tell him he was switching.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29285-2004Mar4.html

Blackmun retired in 1994, so we came within a shade of losing Roe v Wade 10 or more years ago.

(BTW, what's with Justice Kennedy? He's the guy that Souter claimed that he could've turned in Bush v Gore, if he only had another 24 hours. Kennedy was again described as "anguished" over his decision. No wonder bullies like Rehnquist and Scalia often get their way, with a nervous handwringer like him on the bench)

population, and we could have a landslide against Bush this election if we all put our minds to it.

:wtf: Kerry has to win. Give what you can to his campaign. After June spend your extra time on get out the vote. We HAVE to win.

You're missing his point.

Change constitution through amendment process = good.

Change constitution without amendment process = bad.

except when states' rights favor your argument except when there's no such thing as states rights when you are against what they have enacted, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, you can believe the shit he is spewing if you choose to, not me.

But then again, you can't really put 2+2 together and connect the dots with everything this foul "man" has done/said, can you?

Slavery is gone and the right to vote allowed. We don't get equality, civil rights, integration, or right to privacy. I still think the man's insane and very :scared:

if you want a Constitutional Right to Privacy, then get 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the State Legislatures to pass your amendment and then the Constitution will include a right to privacy.

That's his point.

You can agree or disagree, but it seems that for many posters, it's not a matter of disagreeing with his point, there's not an understanding of it.

pointy-head is hiding his anti-anyonebutwhitemen sentiments behind a faux constitional purity argument.

I missed the argument. Thanks for the laugh. :loveya:

and he IS insane, as is HIS argument :hi:

secret energy commission. Somehow, I feel Scalia will find an exception there...

Impeach Scalia (my archived du thread with a few informative links about impeachment)

They are beholden to the repuke party first, and not the constitution or what is correct.

Have to change the congress before you will ever get to what you suggest.

I say give the Republicans the opportunity to betray their stated principles, or not.

It shouldn't take more than five minutes and a cocktail napkin to draw up the articles.

Whereas Quack,

And Whereas Quack Quack and Quid Pro Quack,

Quack,

Impeach the motherfucker.

remember the 2000 election? remember the bush vs. gore decision?
all principles, stated and otherwise, were betrayed then.

But think of all the Republicans who were never asked to cast a vote in favor of upholding law and order and integrity and honor on the Supreme Court.

Judging from their eagerness to impeach WJC, surely some of them must be aching to impeach that Justice Scofflaw.

You suspect that the Republicans in Congress are all partisan fools, willing to destroy our government and risk our national interests for the sake of short-term political gains. I say, Who knows? Maybe some of them are honorable, after all. If we don't give them a chance to demonstrate their honor, how will we ever know for sure? In fact, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we should reach out across the ailse and help our Republican friends live up to their ideals.

It's time for healing.

Impeach Scalia.

i know there are some decent republicans, but i believe they are outnumbered by the religious right, the fascists and the syncophants.
if they are serious about saving this country from their party, i suggest they follow jeffords lead.

I see impeachment proceedings as a win/win in any case. If the Republicans want to do the right thing, fine. If they don't, then they are exposed as hypocritical corrupt Washington insider power elites, and ideological extremists to boot. Let them explain that to their constituents.

and while i don't think it will happen, i'm all for it...and it SHOULD happen :thumbsup: i'd like to add: rhenquist and thomas.

trying to turn Bush v Gore into that most bizarre of beasts, a SC ruling that carries no precedent, saying that it should be:

"...limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

:hurts:

the headline is totally wrong. Scalia NEVER said women have no rights in the constitution.

I hate Scalia as much as anyone, but he's talking about a fine legal point as to whether the 14th Amendment would've granted suffrage to women. As was explained above, it pretty clearly did NOT.

He said in a speech recently that the constitution does not guarantee the poor the right to legal representation at the taxpayers' expense if they are accused of a crime.

So WTF does fat Tony propose that we just automatically lock up poor people? :puke:

it does not mean it shouldn't happen.

If a poor person were not guaranteed a lawyer under the Constitution, then it could be made law by the Congress or state legislature just like any other law.

Courts are not the only branch of the government. They don't make all laws. They aren't supposed to make any laws.

The Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling on rights. Many of the framers didn't even want to add the bill of rights because they were afraid that it would be interpreted to mean that if the right isn't in the constitution, it doesn't exist. That goes counter to the whole idea that they were trying to promote - that the people have ALL the rights, but they can collectively decide to cede some of their rights (or the right to make restrictions on them) to the government. The Bill of Rights is simply an enumeration of rights that the people *can't* concede to the government even if they want to.

Poor bastard doesn't even realize he and his ilk are facing extinction.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then wait for him to f'ing die.

I hope women (and the men who will follow them) can take him up on his offer, and soon. :evilgrin:

Or was that some other freedom-loving right wing infected?

I just read that somewhere, searching...

:mad:

unless it specifically SAYS women? Is that what he's saying?

a specific ban on the death penalty.

When it's something he supports, he says, 'well the Constitution doesn't say you *can't* do it, so it's ok'. When it's something he doesn't support, he says, "well, the Constitution doesn't say you can do it, so you can't'.

using 'original intent' to hide behind. me and skittles should kick his ass :D

which says they will uphold the Constitution? I doubt it means a dead Constitution! Since Scalia has obvious contempt for the Constitution he has sworn to uphold, can't he be impeached?

I know the Repugs would never impeach him ... I'm just asking if it's possible to impeach a Federal Judge and if so, what's the criteria?

He's biased, a bigot, a sexist, and a prick. I really hate him. :grr:

He thinks women have no rights??? Sounds like a typical repuke. I wonder if he thinks slavery should be legal again. :grr: :eyes: