Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Antonin Scalia is smarter than you.

Revel in the awesomeness that is Antonin Scalia.
(Interviewer) 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?

(Justice 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. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Yes, everyone, it really is that simple.

And note, this isn't about gay or women's rights. It's about the constitution and how our republic works.

Scalia gets it. Unfortunately, many of our friends on the left don't.


  1. It's very sloppy on Scalia's part to not specify whether he's talking about private or gov't sponsored discrimination. If he's talking about the ability for private individuals to discriminate, I'd be inclined to agree, but that's not specified. I have to think his thinking does apply to private individuals only because otherwise, he's off his rocker.

    -AT QB

    "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."

  2. Equal rights does not equate special rights. Unfortunately this is something those on the right side of the spectrum fail to recognize.

    Since when is it American or justified to discriminate?

    I'm waiting for DOM opponents to use the Third amendment correctly (similar to Griswold v CT) to explain the unconstitutionality of DOM amendments to those of you who still don't get it.

    My grandchildren in 30 years will look at these times the same way I look at my grandparents' generation and civil rights.


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.