Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination

[Sallow]

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.

Scalia is right in terms of "private" discrimination. Guess you missed that. The government can't discriminate.

Rand Paul made this same sort of argument about private discrimination. It's pretty silly and obnoxious.

 

[GHook93]

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.

It's funny when I started law school I didn't really know Scalia's philosophy, but then after reading his opinion I thought this guy is ignorant and doesn't follow the constitution or stare decisis (which is not always a bad thing such Separate but Equal) at all! Then I read up on Scalia and found out he calls himself a constitutionalist and says the constitution is a dead document. I thought that was very funny, since that sounds great, but he only follows that thinking when it fits his needs, when it doesn't fit his needs he tosses it out the window! Anyone who thinks Scalia is a pure constitutionalist hasn't read his opinions or dissents!

 

[GHook93]

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.

Scalia is right in terms of "private" discrimination. Guess you missed that. The government can't discriminate.

Rand Paul made this same sort of argument about private discrimination. It's pretty silly and obnoxious.

Sallow you are so ignorant. Rand Paul talked about discrimination in restaurants, hotels and private establishments. The COURTS didn't use the equal protection clause to disallow discrimination at restaurants, hotels etc, they used the interstate commerce clause, which is not in the 14th amendment. Read the cases!

While I think Paul is wrong and I am glad the courts disallowed this blackeye on America, get your facts straight for once you fool!

 

[manifold]

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:

Bullshit.

Death Penalty =/= Murder.

Happy fails,
manifold

 

[bodecea]

Because he doesn't believe the Constitution gives the government the power to tell you to eat three servings of vegetables every day?

Naw. Because he believes that if you haven't been convicted of anything while in government custody, torture isn't a cruel and unusual punishment..because you aren't being punished.

Great legal mind there..really.

He's always amazed me with his partisanship ... he's the Judicial Dick Cheney.....in fact, aren't they buddies?

 

[jillian]

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.

It's funny when I started law school I didn't really know Scalia's philosophy, but then after reading his opinion I thought this guy is ignorant and doesn't follow the constitution or stare decisis (which is not always a bad thing such Separate but Equal) at all! Then I read up on Scalia and found out he calls himself a constitutionalist and says the constitution is a dead document. I thought that was very funny, since that sounds great, but he only follows that thinking when it fits his needs, when it doesn't fit his needs he tosses it out the window! Anyone who thinks Scalia is a pure constitutionalist hasn't read his opinions or dissents!

all correct. he's also ethically challenged, which i think bothers me even more than his blatant disregard for the document he is supposed to protect.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Go ahead....you'd be in the back of a long line on that anyways.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Scalia is right in terms of "private" discrimination. Guess you missed that. The government can't discriminate.

Rand Paul made this same sort of argument about private discrimination. It's pretty silly and obnoxious.

Sallow you are so ignorant. Rand Paul talked about discrimination in restaurants, hotels and private establishments. The COURTS didn't use the equal protection clause to disallow discrimination at restaurants, hotels etc, they used the interstate commerce clause, which is not in the 14th amendment. Read the cases!

While I think Paul is wrong and I am glad the courts disallowed this blackeye on America, get your facts straight for once you fool!

Um..I knew exactly what they used.

And your previous posts display your ignorance all the time.

You're always the first to get personal or assume stuff. And you get emotional over the ridiculous.

But do continue..I find it hilarious. Especially since you proport to have "studied law" and I am basically a layman in that department.

 

[Sallow]

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:

Bullshit.

Death Penalty =/= Murder.

Happy fails,
manifold

Not even a "thanks" for my google efforts made at your request.

Well no more soup for you!

 

[Liberty]

rdean fail. the preamble by definition of the WORD preamble, is not legally binding, it is simply an introduction.

 

[jillian]

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?

you don't really think i'm going to waste my time explaining common law to you, do you?

ask your social studies teacher.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution itself doesn't protect anyone from discrimination.

Why do you think there was a 'need' for the Civil Rights Act?

well, yes and no. the constitution entitles everyone to equal treatment under the law. theoretically, that should have obviated the need for a civil rights act. but the reality is that the civil rights act extended the government's obligation not to discriminate to non-governmental entities.

 

[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.

OK, I'll explain it.

The reason "mandatory purchase" was put into health care was so people can't take unfair advantage of "pre-existing condition".

It was unfair to classify "an allergy, a mammogram, an appendectomy, and other such inconsequential s as "pre-existing" conditions. This gave insurance companies the opportunity to drop people "retroactively" who became sick.

At the same time, you can't go out and buy insurance after you really get sick. This would be like having a car accident and THEN buying car insurance and expecting them to pay for it.

The "mandatory purchase" gave both the public and insurance companies "options" to be protected from being taken advantage of.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution itself doesn't protect anyone from discrimination.

Why do you think there was a 'need' for the Civil Rights Act?

well, yes and no. the constitution entitles everyone to equal treatment under the law. theoretically, that should have obviated the need for a civil rights act. but the reality is that the civil rights act extended the government's obligation not to discriminate to non-governmental entities.

The Civil Right act was necessary because private business held they had a right to discriminate in terms of who they provided services and goods for..which is why the constitutional guarantee of the act fall under the commerce clause delegated as one of the powers of Congress.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution itself doesn't protect anyone from discrimination.

Why do you think there was a 'need' for the Civil Rights Act?

well, yes and no. the constitution entitles everyone to equal treatment under the law. theoretically, that should have obviated the need for a civil rights act. but the reality is that the civil rights act extended the government's obligation not to discriminate to non-governmental entities.

The Civil Right act was necessary because private business held they had a right to discriminate in terms of who they provided services and goods for..which is why the constitutional guarantee of the act fall under the commerce clause delegated as one of the powers of Congress.

exactly.

 

[whitehall]

Democrat NY congressman Jerald (fat jerry) Nadler called the US Constitution "propaganda". The assault on Scalia ties in with the leftie offensive against the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

Democrat NY congressman Jerald (fat jerry) Nadler called the US Constitution "propaganda". The assault on Scalia ties in with the leftie offensive against the Constitution.

no moron, he said the dog and pony show of READING it was propaganda. and given that the guy who read it doesn't even know what it means, i think ole jerry is correct. and maybe you shouldn't lie about what he said.

no matter what you freepers say.

as for his weight? umm... why do you care? he can (and did) lose weight. i figure you'll always be a loser. *shrug*

 

[Liberty]

The Constitution was written in the plainest English at the time. This whole "it's subjective" propaganda the left keeps puking out, just makes them look like morons. The Constitution is as plain as day; every single part of it.

 

[George Costanza]

The Constitution was written in the plainest English at the time. This whole "it's subjective" propaganda the left keeps puking out, just makes them look like morons. The Constitution is as plain as day; every single part of it.

Golly, then what are those tens of thousands of United States Supreme Court decisions we have on file all about? If everything was so "plain as day," you would think that court action to determine what the Constitution means, would not be necessary at all . . .

 

[jillian]

The Constitution was written in the plainest English at the time. This whole "it's subjective" propaganda the left keeps puking out, just makes them look like morons. The Constitution is as plain as day; every single part of it.

Golly, then what are those tens of thousands of United States Supreme Court decisions we have on file all about? If everything was so "plain as day," you would think that court action to determine what the Constitution means, would not be necessary at all . . .

i know... apparently great minds can't figure out what the pretend constitutionalists can.

/sarcasm