Scalia on women

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Scalia
• on
• women

[bluemontanaskies]

@jofisher That's no excuse...so she gets a free pass because she's a woman and a lib right?

[bluemontanaskies]

Feinstein is pretty stupid...and pretty ugly too.

[bullish89]

ThinkProgress must not be a JD. Way to narrow the context of the video so as not to portray Feinstein's dumbfounded realization of her egregious misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. This is more of a reflection of her staffers' incompetence. Being a senior member of the judiciary committee, those two dolts behind her are probably JDs, though you wouldn't know it by their failure to recognize the nuance of the Constitution. Breyer concurs with Scalia in the background.

[LexNaturalis1982]

Well, He's right. The Constitution applies to government descrimination not private descrimination. Think Progress posted this video in an attempt to portray Scalia in a negative light, however, when you have activist liberal circuit court judges claiming that "ladies night" at a private business is discriminatory then you get the idea why we have the right to discriminate in our own private capacity.

[rextrek]

he just made the case for Equality for Gay/lesbian americans ie: 14th ammendment

[jofisher]

This is a rare opportunity to see two justices talk to senators and was actually pretty watchable.

I thought the best part was the judges lamenting how Americans do not get enough civcs education to acquaint themselves better with the U.S. Constitution.

This was the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of Oct 5, 2011 and can be found senate dot gov (go to the "judiciary" committee).

[jofisher]

Breyer, sitting next to him, agreed with Scalia on Feinstein's irrelevant comparisons. This video does not show the full experience of the look on Feinstein's face when she realized that she had asked an ignorant question and then said, "oh." In her defense, Feinstein is not a lawyer, but she sure should have ran her question past a staff lawyer first.

[ninuxy]

He is right. The Constitution does not protect against "sex discrimination,"given it is against men or women. Unfortunately, for Scalia, he chose to use an example where sex discrimination applied to women.

Nonetheless, it shows a flaw in the Constitution that sexual discrimination and gender inequality must be remedies through legislatures, and it is not innately ossified in the documents.

I wonder if such flexibility is by design to accommodate certain situations.