Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination

[Revere]

No, it's not. Pass a law against torture and then test its constitutionality.

Everything you think is mean is not unconstitutional.

 

[Sallow]

No, it's not. Pass a law against torture and then test its constitutionality.

Everything you think is mean is not unconstitutional.

This is covered in several clauses and amendments.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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.

Take some time..I know these are new to you.

 

[Revere]

Road rage is not unconstitutional.

 

[Sallow]

Road rage is not unconstitutional.

You drinking tonight?

 

[Revere]

You want the Constitution to protect you when someone smashes in your car window to take your wallet, but you don't want it to protect you from government who thinks it can make you buy health insurance.

I really have no use for you, truth be told.

 

[Sallow]

Scotch? Beer? Ripple?

 

[jillian]

He's right, of course.

He is beyond wrong! Scalia only follows his philosophy when it fits his needs, he tosses it out the window when it doesn't. He is a hack and horrible judge!

have you ever noticed that it's only the pretend constitutionalists who like scalia. but anyone who's actually studied or cares about the caselaw knows what a hack he is.

 

[Revere]

Case law is not the same as the Constitution.

Dred Scot was case law. Korematsu was case law. Plessey was case law.

What is the case law relative to the Constitution enabling government to force you to buy health insurance?

 

[rdean]

You want the Constitution to protect you when someone smashes in your car window to take your wallet, but you don't want it to protect you from government who thinks it can make you buy health insurance.

I really have no use for you, truth be told.

How many people has the government prosecuted for not buying health insurance?

 

[Revere]

None! Thanks to Scalia and his cohorts, it won't see the light of day.

 

[The Infidel]

How many people has the government prosecuted for not buying health insurance?

What are you... an idiot?









Nevermind.... stupid question

 

[whitehall]

Scalia was specifically asked whether discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation was included in the the 14th Amendment. Read the thing. It says nothing about discrimination against women. There is no Constitutional guarantee of "privacy" in the Constitution either but leftie activist judges found one to authorize women to hire someone to kill their unborn babies. Scalia was making a point that the legislature is the place to enact laws rather than from the bench by activist judges. It's an important point often disregarded by ignorant lefties.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

scalia is a moron

And yet Congress appointed him a Supreme Court Justice and later made him the head of the Court.

Does that mean I get to proclaim Sotomeyer is a Racist?

 

[editec]

Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination

Except gun queers, of course.

 

[whitehall]

If you suggested, back in 1868, that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect women from discrimination they would have laughed at you. If you suggested that the 14th Amendment was intended to give special rights to sodomites they would have thrown you in the loonie bin. The intent is not there despite the hysteria and wishful thinking on the left. Scalia is right.

 

[jillian]

If you suggested, back in 1868, that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect women from discrimination they would have laughed at you. If you suggested that the 14th Amendment was intended to give special rights to sodomites they would have thrown you in the loonie bin. The intent is not there despite the hysteria and wishful thinking on the left. Scalia is right.

i guess the concept that the definition of what constitutes equal protection evolves is too complicated for you.

 

[jillian]

scalia is a moron

And yet Congress appointed him a Supreme Court Justice and later made him the head of the Court.

Does that mean I get to proclaim Sotomeyer[sic] is a Racist?

he isn't head of the court. roberts is. even bush wouldn't make scalia chief justice.

why would you call sotomayor a racist. kindly link to all racist decisions that came out of the second circuit court of appeals during her tenure.

thanks in advance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

He's right, of course.

Yep. Just like you (well, he's not dumb as a box of nails like you, but he is right. Very very far right, on the fringe so to speak of becoming far left).

 

[rdean]

How many people has the government prosecuted for not buying health insurance?

What are you... an idiot?









Nevermind.... stupid question

Do you guys know why that was put into health care? Mandatory purchase? It's a "protection" against something else. Think about it. If you can't figure it out I will tell you. Also, think about the real reason it's never been prosecuted and why it won't be.

It's not part of the health care bill so the government has a reason to prosecute people. It's there to keep something else from happening.

From your comments so far, it seems obvious you don't understand, but I just want to make sure.

If no one answers, then I will explain it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Constitution provides no protection from being murdered.

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever used any legal document to (successfully) defend themselves from being murdered. But I suppose it's theoretically possible.


Just sayin...

Yep. Many who were on death row successfully avoided murder by the states when the Supreme Court overturned all death penalty conviction in 1972, using a document:

"Legal challenges to the death penalty culminated in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972), which struck down federal and state capital punishment laws permitting wide discretion in the application of the death penalty. Characterizing these laws as "arbitrary and capricious," the majority ruled that they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Only two of the justices concurring in the decision (Justices Brennan and Marshall) declared capital punishment to be unconstitutional in all instances, however; other concurrences by Justices Douglas, Stewart, and White focused on the abitrariness of the application of capital punishment, including the appearance of racial bias against black defendants. In all, nine separate opinions -- five invalidating existing laws and four arguing for their retention -- were written by the nine Supreme Court justices spelling out their different views on what constituted the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment."