Scalia: Women’s Rights Not In Constitution
Articles Blog

Scalia: Women’s Rights Not In Constitution

August 26, 2019


justice antonin scalia is particularly justice
he claims to be very principled and uh… arguable respectively combo unicef
that is not true is not going is not principle uh… and explain why right that he recently said at the university of california since college
of law speech if the car society wants outlaw discrimination
by sex you have legislators meaning he doesn’t think that the constitution prohibits sex discrimination so if you want to have a higher women or they
get pregnant i wanna fire them well or whatever other kind of this commission
on debates on sex antonin scalia thing that’s perfectly constitution when she went to the fourteenth amendment
guarantees you due process and equal protection of the law said no that was only meant for black people shifting opinion for a concert at that seized on the strip interpret interpretations and so uh… and look i just stick to what the constitution
says those matter with the politics so equal rights do not apply to women according
to finance cooley that’s what he used the equal rights phil plight to in another case to make sure that george bush would uh… window presidency in two thousand because he wouldn’t be discriminated against by having votes counted dipper way in broward
county and dade county within floor he said well that would be a violation of
the equal rights agree on the board even that about seventy percent within or by the way latinos jews anybody else right-to-die not meant to protect anybody outside about books and george w_ bush what idv joke scalia west sac sac jobs no one else is set when i was a young conservative uh… it and especially in in judicial matters ice respect school i have bought into the height on-site all
nobody is present was a and then as i was reading more and more the
case when i was a law school it and otherwise was like we know that doesn’t seem to drive icons and mostly strikes is
that all states rights absolutely they can destroy a guest black folks so question
about that and if they want to pass laws against gay
marriage are that’s stage lights case came out about pot and how some states that fair pay okay is something at that we have a tradition of
here when all of the native americans do that if i could tell you how many states rights we talk about pop when did you believe this is an issue though kai has absolutely no principle he just doing it based on whatever is politics
says he doesn’t like pot so he’s against it he doesn’t like euthanasia
because his sky guide told let’s wrong so that you had a situation do that but have
since i got told them that uh… he’d take a people’s lives like all you have states
rights a gay people yes you can do that wink joke this guy if you’d like this guy seriously lego there’s
a respected jurist all he is brilliant like even back when i was a concern right now who
yep i got out of it is cases like this guy is a brilliant these ridiculous here let me
give you an example right now o scalia says you-know-what i have a strict
interpretation is and i think the constitution existing starkly the letter of the law exactly
as it was written interrogation of the brownie pops right what they met so there’s a pump up point of view this is no
the constitution is a as a living document right and it’s meant to grow that’s what has
terms like due process it depends on what you mean by due process job of the supreme
court us interpret now while i stand i stand for i do not what the guys who say living document
audit the constitution has met the mean whatever the hell i think it means today politically whether rama right winger
left-winger and i don’t believe in the street individual
walk back in when the founding fathers wrote the
constitution people use to get wit as punish i_d_ takeaway attending slash in
the back today that would be considered cruel and unusual a punishment and a violation of the ethernet
so i guess according to school in dot the constitution never changes whatever the founding
fathers were that not that to what was wiretapping there were no telephones factor so okay that’s
it how does that mean you can or cannot do what was part of it dua mein meld with the founding father try
to find out that’s absurd of course we interpret it within the context
of our time at the same time italic research initially
in a lot of ways idling rover’s a weight is totally wrong aunty an illegal that matter posse wise i
love it if it was a boy we’re in law also ones that are but the supreme court of appeared on the second
trimester the constitution says i’ll come on and on the about the current
prime ministers in the constitution but i’m actually consistent on this but scalia the lease kisses and an oral he says no uh… struck interbase right so for example free speech okay it’s meant
applied to the press entity individuals and also the corporations we talking about the founding fathers or self scared of at big business interest they have what pamphlet after pablo watch
oprah big yes they never intended for freedom of speech
that applied for corporations to be considered human beings and have the rights of the first amendment
had happened was speechless in other words right to spend as much money
as possible the by all the politicians thomas jefferson is one is great about that idea
james madison georgia all of them this type of has to be a strict interpretations he’s not broad about highest order stopping in seriously instead what’s clear does about what are the
republicans will they want bush office yes with that equal protection uh… all right we we don’t
while we don’t like women right now they don’t get equal protection right dates or what it’s like i said so i got i shall i write the laws or don’t you don’t like this days no in the
protected by the constitution you know that in that was the texas in his dissent scalia said to the governors you have a right to outlaw
masturbation he doesn’t want a government getting between
u_n_ your doctor for example in health care et
cetera like a service a as an example but he was ever to get between you and your
head uh… pat augment what up brought all of these guys are start
god or should i do about masturbation already has that no states rights right and then of course for birthday in the bells haveing corporations will won’t wanted to start what’s going on delta force because of all
race in the world stopped taking these guys seriously uh… what i can stand is the idea that these
guys are brilliant they’re not brilliant they’re doing the same demagoguery tricks
judicial activism unprincipled garbage that it that they’ve been doing all this time scully please don’t buy into the height they high populace like this just so they can get their corporate is waves

Only registered users can comment.

  1. @1RadicalOne That's not the way the system works, besides it would be extremely dangerous to set a principle whereby you could remove one simply because you don't agree with their views.

  2. @cbgkorn No you are sadly mistaken. So easy to blame everything on the idea of God. You seriously think that in a world without religion Scalia won't find other ways to go about his business. PLEASE!

  3. @adamsfall and i didnt say othrwise so whats your point? You simply added to mine.

    Though since you bring it up, pay scale isnt usually about discrimination.

    Ironically Ledbetter case that made Obamas first signing is an example where a woman was not ambitious and the men around her were, so she blamed it on descrimination instead of her own lack of ambition.

    How many times was she turned down for a raise? I didnt hear that she even asked what her coworkers made for decades.

  4. @adamsfall She did nothing for decades, not even try to find a job at competition, thinking that her boss was supposed to take care of her? lol

    If she doesnt ask for a raise and fight for it like the guys do, why should he pay her more than shes willing to make right now?

    There was no proof of descriination in her case, simply a lack of ambittion.

    In every job I go to people know what their bosses make and what their coworkers make and do fight for their wage, you cant be handheld as an adult

  5. @aaronsande Oh, I read what you said. Your reply only furthers my point, homeskillet. You didn't even mention the Bible, the AUTHORITY of Christian philosophy and law, and yet, you say that it is why you think God is "ridiculous". I even said this in my reply, the reply YOU failed to read thoroughly.

  6. @theRekcabofD yeah, no. Cenk is known for veiling his so-called "Atheism" with a very real "Anti-Christianity". He's beginning to lean towards a more Bill Maher sort of perspective on Christ. I agree with dude on 99.9999999 percent of what he says until he becomes very disrespectful of Christianity, which is odd. It seems he'd be anti-all religions. But no. Just the "sky-god" of Christians.

  7. @BlackSoultan Actually if you look at TYT videos of 2007 on Israel Palestinian conflict, Cenk goes out of his way to defend Muslim opinions, way of life and Quran.
    I wonder what that tells us about Cenk's religious position.

  8. @aaronsande No one said you said ANYTHING about the Bible. Why are you so dense? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Watch:

    "I…said it is the hateful, ridiculous stance against gays and most interesting sex acts that makes your GOD ridiculous to me." <== MY GOD doesn't take that stance. Had you bothered to read the BIBLE – see how that enters in now??!? – you'd know that. Your mad at GOD for something he didn't say, Hometown Buffet! (I'm running out of these).

  9. @aaronsande No, I don't see how you miss-read it. That last quote was in an either/or pontification as to how you likely came to that conclusion that God Hates Gays. Moreover, if you truly thought it was a fictional document (and it isn't, even if you DON'T believe in God), then you wouldn't care so much about the ridiculous nature of a being you don't think exists. You're full of contradictions here.

  10. @aaronsande Moreover, my first statement in re "the Bible says nothing of hating homosexuals" should have signaled to you two things: 1) The Bible is considered by Christians to be the end all be all authority on God's word. In other words, if you go anywhere outside of that, it's not a reliable authority upon which to base an opinion on what Christians believe to be God's word, so may as well not argue with us unless we're on the "same page" as to what we're talking about, and you're not.

  11. @CommonSenseJoe He's actually pretty solid at his legal analysis. After all, he IS a damn well trained attorney. As am I, and I pay close attention to these sort of things when dealing with the blogosphere. But tell us, what did Scalia really say?

  12. @Thebeautiful11 You may as well talk to a brick wall. People sin, and some would rather make excuses as to why the Bible is wrong (often by misrepresenting its teachings) instead of tailoring themselves to fit its teachings. So a gay person, for example, will say "God hates gays! I don't want to follow such hatred!" or "The bible also says *insert ridiculous lie here*, so clearly the Bible isn't serious." We all do it at some level.

  13. @NewYorkFlavour Yep, he seems to. Y'all should write to them about your concerns. I have. If more of us in the TYT army would stand up for this issue, he'd have to pay attention. Cenk is extremely reasonable.

  14. @CommonSenseJoe So go get what this brilliant jurist actually said and come back to us and say where Cenk is wrong.Otherwise, you're just attacking Cenk and not his argument.

  15. @aaronsande I am not confused in any way what you said. What I'm saying is that you CANNOT speak on the character of the Christian God based on the word of people whom we both agree are nutjobs. That would be like me saying "I hate Obama because these nutjobs say he's a ridiculous Nazi".. That's not helping your argument any. Whether you think God exists or doesn't, you have to agree that the authority on God is the Bible, like the authority on Harry Potter is J.K. Rowling.

  16. @CommonSenseJoe The problem is I just went and Googled what Scalia said, and being quite familiar with Scalia's work, it's not shocking, nor has Cenk misstated Scalia's position. I've found nothing yet that contradicts Cenk's reporting on the UC-Hastings statements. Scalia uses originalist arguments to say the Constitution wasn't intended to afford equal protection to Women or Gays. He also said he won't ignore his religion when deciding cases. So Cenk's accurate on those. Show me otherwise.

  17. I both agree & disagree w/ you about this. Substantially, you're right. Scalia is a total fraud. And you're right that it's his lack of consistency that proves he's a fraud.

    But here's the tough part – he really is brilliant. I've known many people who I respect who've had conversations w/ the man and they all talk about his wit and intelligence. Of course, a man can be a brilliant and witty whore, and that's just what Scalia is.

    Sorry to split hairs, especially ones no one cares about.

  18. @Minkki82 I definitely see your point, but I still think America should consider at least giving women some basic pregnancy leave rights. Countries like France give their female employees a few months of paid leave, including fathers, for having a baby. There are also programs that help the women take care of basic chores in France, such as housekeeping and nannies that are government paid. I'm not insisting that America should model them exactly, but in terms of equality America is lagging.

  19. @BlackSoultan I don't understand your logic at all. Why would I have to justify the lack of a belief? Is 1+1 not 2? You explain to me how magic and myths are real, and I'll be impressed.

    I've studied my fair share of religious history, probably more than you, so if you have an intelligible comment to make, make it. The middle age Christians were pretty offended when they burned people at the stake for blasphemy. So are the Muslims today when they stone people to death for "disobeying god".

  20. @theRekcabofD Mythology is not different from religion, faithful people just perceive it as such to justify their own absurd beliefs. They've convinced themselves the stories are not "myths" but actually "real".

    The ancient Greeks really thought Mt. Olympus existed and Zeus ran it. It was their religion. Today the people who believe that aren't around anymore so we call it mythology.

  21. @aaronsande 1. Yes, and you can be dead wrong doing it. You have that right, which is a good thing, considering.
    2. But you did anyway.
    3. No, you didn't ridicule god, you said God is ridiculous because of what you admittedly said was very wrong sources.

    So we are NOT cool because you could easily look up what the Bible actually says and you knowingly did not before making such asinine claims and now you're trying to justify such a lazy thought process. No. That's just being lukewarm.

  22. @theRekcabofD It depends on how you define"governing". Religion is primitive philosophy. It instills a code of behavior and a moral structure that is enforced by a power greater than anything. It tells you to defy your reason and rational understanding of the world and accept outrageous fables as guides to life. It "governs" in the sense that it defines morality, acceptable behavior, what's okay to eat, justice, and how to live one's life. Displacing governing bodies is a testament to its power.

  23. @theRekcabofD I'm not contending that religion is bad, or that it doesn't inspire people to do good things. It does however inspire people to do bad things as well.

    Nowadays in America religion is not "enforced" but go to the Middle East and it is. For centuries in Europe it was enforced at sword point. Separation of church and state is a relatively new concept. Christianity enforces itself by convincing the faithful that if they don't follow certain rules they're going to hell.

  24. @theRekcabofD There is no reason in religion because it tells you that the impossible is truth. It offers no evidence, no proof, but asks that you ignore all your rational understandings of the world and take everything on faith. It gives man permission to act irrationally and demands him to accept something immune and superior to reason.

    Religion is based on faith, not reason and fact.

  25. Scalia has always been a strict constructionist, so much so that his mind cannot generate the flexibility needed to understand that things tend to change and evolve over a period of 220-plus years. Our founding documents talk about "all men created equal", and Scalia is interpreting that statement literally. That is the main problem with strict constructionism, and Scalia would have been more comfortable living in the early 19th Century, when women were viewed as nothing more than mere objects.

  26. Scalia is correct. Why do people think the Constitution was meant to enumerate and protect all rights? The states were left with most of the decisions in the arena of civil rights and the Feds were to be concerned mostly with foreign affairs and inter state relations. Why do Libs want federal judges dictating to the people how we should live our lives/? Too many modern judges have no respect for the law.

  27. @ChristianMission Thomas Jefferson had a 16 page bible which contained no superntural parts of the bible. Thomas Paine was a deist. Benjamin franklin rejected many beliefs of Christianity such as hell salvation and the divinity of jesus. George Washington never declared himself a christian, never uttered anything of religious nature on his death bed. John Adams was quoted as saying "this would be the best world of all if there was no religion in it".

  28. @ChristianMission James Madison Said that religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind. Ethan Allen also considered himself a Diest. Hatred for homosexuality is the same as racism, it was incorporated into the religion by man because we don't like what is different, this is the same reason why Slavery existed.

  29. @ChristianMission Thomas Jefferson had a 16 page bible that had no supernatural content and called the revelation of saint john the ravings of a mad man. George Washington never declared himself a christian, didn't have a clergy at his death bed and did not utter anything of religious nature on it. Thomas Paine was a deist. John Adams thought the word would be better with no religion and called clergymen dunces. Benjamin Franklin rejected the ideas of Christs divinity, hell and salvation.

  30. @antipyrene
    How do you know that slavery would still exist today if it weren't for the federal government? Have you ever heard of conscription?

  31. @66605 If states rights should trumpet all else, then why did the feds have to intervene against slavery. Stem cell research should be up to the states then. Let me guess, you are against stem cell research…admit it, you are inconsistent.

  32. The America Constitution needs to be a living document. Not the picture of a document.

    To my American friends I say check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    😛

  33. @antipyrene
    At the time of the founding 12/13 of the states were slave states. Before the 13 Amend. passed about half were. Can you see the direction slavery was going? Please explain how conscription is compatible with liberty. How it is not a form of slavery.

  34. @XSC3 Like I said, people don't like what is different but have progressed to where we are today, my point was that religion was made by man and had the opinions of men in it. My point was that slavery was acceptable because when we saw it as acceptable because they were different.

  35. @MrCoolCoder562
    The Feds did not have to interfere in the slavery issue. The feds made things worse with the coercion and violence used to subjugate the South. Slavery would have died a natural death without interference. It could have ended peacefully like it did in the rest of the West. If federal funds are used to do fetal stem cell research then that is a federal issue.

  36. @antipyrene
    When the feds can force people to leave their families and sacrifice their lives for the state I would call that slavery. Why do you approve of some kinds of slavery but not others? Is it just private slavery you are opposed to rather than public slavery?

  37. @antipyrene
    So, if a democratic society votes to enslave some of its citizens then slavery is okay? Isn't democracy great? Democratically imposed slavery is still slavery you idiot.

  38. @antipyrene
    The state does whatever it wants. You only have those rights the state allows you to have. Ask the Japanese Americans about their rights when they were placed in internment camps during WW2. How about the Patriot Act which enables the President to put anyone he pleases into a legal black hole where they effectively disappear. We are all slaves if we continue to put up with the unlimited government we have today.

  39. Cenk says repeatedly that Scalia characterizes himself as "a strict interpretationist." That's a complete lie. Scalia never characterized himself in this way.

    And where did Scalia say–as Cenk accuses him of saying in his judicial opinions–that states have the right to discriminate against blacks? Nowhere. Cenk is once again lying about Scalia, because he doesn't like Scalia.

    Yet Cenk has the audacity to accuse Scalia of being unprincipled.

  40. By the way, read section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment–with its references to the right of MALES to vote–if you're so sure that the amendment can honestly be read to give equal rights to women. If it does, why does it talk only about the right of MALES to vote?

  41. @antipyrene I'm very much aware of that. Women got the right to vote from the Nineteenth Amendment. Meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give women the right to vote, as section 2 makes too plain for argument. Meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give women equal rights. Meaning, SCALIA IS RIGHT.

  42. @fayerichards6 That's not what i asked? I know what it's based on, but how is that not discriminatory, what if blacks got into more accidents statistically? Could i raise their insurance?

  43. @antipyrene
    So I have rights if the right people are sitting on a bench somewhere in D.C.? How consoling! I will go with Scalia over liberal judges who have no respect for the Constitution and seek to impose their own political views on the nation.

  44. @XSC3 I know we like things that are different but we have a primal instinct against things that are different. I'm fully aware that slavery existed because we needed cheap labor but it was allowed to be done to humans because they were viewed as inferior and different.

  45. @jezmundberserker They actually encourage it. All politicians do. In fact, this applies to all Americans. Why do you think they constantly elect dumbasses who appoint other dumbasses.

  46. America is the country where people don't believe in evolution. Where they trust in the "skygod". Where faith conquers science, logic, and deductive reasoning.
    The place where Bush won twice. Hell, the fact that he got even 40%, 30% of the vote is sad.
    Where Palin, O'Donell, and Angle are potential winners in their categories.
    Who's #1 name in news is Faux.
    Where the "other guys" (Dems) are sellouts douches.
    Where 3rd parties are ignored.

    This is obviously some cruel joke we're playing.

  47. @z0mgz0rs: 100% agreed. To tie it all up, I'd like to add the following: America is the only country which allowed a douchebag to steal an election and four years later actually voted him in!

  48. @66605

    Not federal judges dictating how we should live our lives, federal judges allow ME to dictate how should live my life, rather than some perverse, invasive state law. Not dictate, protect.

  49. @Dave26000
    So you would have judges making law rather than a democratically elected legislature? Why do you think judges are on your side?

  50. @ChristianMission In a letter to Joseph priestly Thomas Jefferson stated that he was making the Thomas Jefferson bible to give his view of Christianity. He also stated that the revelation of saint john were the ravings of a mad man. Furthermore even though you provide no link to the study and you pulled a number out of your ass anyway it wouldn't matter if the founding fathers had quotes indirectly from the bible, the bible says a lot of things including don't steal and don't kill

  51. @ChristianMission If a founding father said don't kill and don't steal he would be indirectly quoting the bible but that hardly matters considering most of the bible morals are derived from the culture of the time and weren't exactly new ideas. You Christians disgust me, lying snakes, every last one of you.

  52. What this Turk neglects to say is that the 14th Amendment itself allowed the disenfranchisement of felons and women. See U.S. Const. Amend XIV, Sec. 2.

    It took the 19th Amendment to establish universal suffrage, which would not have been necessary had it actually protected women. So Scalia's view is neither implausible nor absurd.

    What is absurd is this petulant youtube ataturk telling us "they [Supreme Court justices] aren't brilliant." LOL. They're smarter than you, that's for sure.

  53. @ChristianMission Here's a condensed list of the morals that the bible took from it's time based on how ignorant people were then

    Anti sexuality
    anti homosexual
    inhumane punishment
    incorrect science
    on top of that it has loads of contradictions which is understandable because it was written by several people and so obviously not divinely inspired

    to top it off there are plenty of anti women things in the bible and I bet these are several more than you can point out

  54. @66605

    They don't make laws, they judge laws, that's their job. The 14th amendment allows them to judge state laws against the concept of liberty. Ruling that a law against sodomy is unconstitutional logically protects peoples rights, whether I believe that the judges are on my side or not. That is a clear violation of liberty, no democratically elected legislature should be allowed to decide that people will get sent to Fing JAIL for having the "wrong kind of sex" in their own privacy.

  55. workplace discrimination does not violate constitutional rights. the due process clause in relevant part reads "no STATE shall 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". Employers are not states; they are private entities. Congress is free to (and has) enacted legislation to prevent workplace discrimination. It is not a Constitutional issue.

  56. I disagree with the assessment of Scalia's legal opinions. Justice Scalia's legal opinions are not opinions based on his personal catholic or conservative view points. Only on principles of legality, what he was saying about torture was not weather or not torture "ought to be allowed" but weather it is illegal or not. There is nothing in the constitution that says torture is illegal. Not everything that is good or bad is covered by a provision of the constitution, that's all he was saying.

  57. @lrd9999 "Torture" isn't "punishment" according to the supreme court and is not covered under that Amendment. Not everything that's morally correct is covered by some provision of the Constitution. That's the only point I was making.

  58. @avatarmn Actually Scalia himself says he's neither, adhering to his own definition of constitutional interpretation as being "textualism." Thomas who is even further to the ultra-right is an originalist, but it's all all legal hair-splitting. It is clearly evident that no matter the silly label, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts and often Kennedy are political neo-conservatives and with their 5-4 decisions blatantly protect big business and the wealthy, just like all Republicans.

  59. What a sad analysis. You're obviously just winging it and you don't know how to make analogies.
    1) "Due process" protects us against arbitrary government actions. It does not apply to hiring and firing decision in the private sector.
    2) If you think state laws can contradict federal law because of "states' rights", making something that is illegal in the entire United States legal in your state, you are delusional.
    3) Free speech: Are "the press" not corporations?

  60. @MrUnicorn4711, I say it all the time. I am pro-choice, but as a constitutional lawyer, I cannot find any merit to the legal claim that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. It is simply silent on such issues, which means the voters of each state can decide for themselves what they think is right and enact laws accordingly.

  61. i agree with some of what you said, but i can tell you dont really understand his judicial philosophy. you also discredited yourself with the name calling. you should debate scalia on constitutional law.

  62. if you have to every talk to a coc#-sucker like Scalia, copy and paste the whole damn constituion and rights. (Related Amendments, 13th:1865 14th:1868 15th:1870 19th:1920 26th:1971). are we all in? the show is about to start. Scalia is a disgrace to pathetic assholes the world over.

  63. The 'Founding Fathers' feared big business?!? And made pamphlets against them… wtf? This entire piece was a total hack job….

  64. what do u expect from the oligarch's court? this douchebag is a prime example of consistency being the hobobln of small minds masquerading as learning. Hes a total jackass.

  65. Normally I would jump at the chance to rag on Scalia, but unfortunately you could not be more wrong in this case. Equal Protection does apply to women. The 14th amendment only provides equal protection of the law i.e. as against the government. There is no "private" right of equal protection in the Constitution (as you seem to be advocating). To prevent private discrimination, you pass statutes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a prime example. Did you fall asleep in Constitutional Law?

  66. Exactly.

    Women do get protection form the government, but the constitution sure as hell isn't saying the government has to stop private entities from discriminating. It says that nowhere.

  67. Feel free to move to Canada–we have several parties. I think there's even a Pirate Party, which is some sort of ironic statement for hipsters or something. Anyway, we have a long way to go but at least we don't say things like "religion is under attack" or think that children should be taught about "intelligent design" or creationism and "decide for themselves." Then they can tell them about the flying pink unicorn whose fairy dust holds them to the Earth.

  68. I am constantly amused by the blowhard ignorance of TYT. The big bright line between supposed equal protection of women in the context Scalia was discussing and your examples (eg, blacks and Bush v. Gore) is that the former is dealing with PRIVATE property and the latter "examples" deal with public property. The 14th Amendment DOES apply when stopping a state from banning blacks from entering a park. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT apply when a store owner does not hire as many women as men.

  69. Scalia's absolutely right though. The Fourteenth Amendment only prohibits GOVERNMENT from discriminating, NOT private companies or individuals. If you want to prohibit that, you need to pass a law by the legislature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *