Supreme Court's Scalia Says Discrimination Is Constitutional

Reader Comments
Back to blog

except....everyone forgets that "the Sovereignty is in the People"

Linda Bell of ID 9:54AM March 07, 2011

Shooter in Arizona was right wing.
After Right Wing Shooter Representative Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) of Tuscon, Arizona, shot by Far Right Fascist Tea Party Anti-Democratic Free Marketeer Hate-monger, Pro-Gold Standard, anti-immigrant, read Mein Kampf, American Renaissance,

S1Genocide of NV 3:05PM January 23, 2011

OK, so here's a question. In a society where the great-great granddaughter of 3/5 of a person is our first lady, and gay people can finally serve freely in the military, why should be ruled by a collection of people who a) did own slaves, b) were all white men, and c) had preferences that weren't ours? That's not particularly democratic, either. If we have legislatures to make and pass laws, the preferences of white male elites from nearly 2 1/2 centuries ago have nothing to do with the society we live in now.

Nathan Roser of KS 1:49PM January 23, 2011

No, what we have is a left wing commentator twisting what was said. Once again here is the complete quote:
“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.”
And once again, what he is saying is that the Supreme Court is not to write laws, but to determine if a law is constitutional Their job should be to be sure that an over right wing or left wing government does not impose unconstitutional laws on us.

kewaal of GA 10:55AM January 09, 2011

Are you a loner ? Pot head ? Live with parents ? Think government is into mind control thru grammar ?
Though having no judicical education, feel court decisions must side with your views ? Do you own a semi automatic gun ?
You see shooter in Arizona was a liberal. Like you...

Bill Hedges of MO 2:15AM January 09, 2011

Sounds like we have a wing-nut sitting on the supreme court. He can do more damage there than that shooter in Arizona. I am sure the cult of stupidiy loves him.

Oak of CO 10:08PM January 08, 2011

“This is not a black and white issue, but free speech is not the same as overturning almost 100 years of legal precedent that says the "free" speech has to have limits when corporations such as fox noise can control our tv news viewers choices, political candidates, and, soon, the right to block other viewpoints, i.e., net neutrality.”
Where did 100 years come from ? A Democrat Congressman mistakenly said America was 100 years old.
Your poll I found to be invalid. You can check my reply that has link and reason.
Fox has been # 1 for 9 years on cable. Bill for 10 years on cable. Shows are 3-6 times larger than 2nd place CNN depending on show. I’ll guess that all other cable news put together = Fox on each show. Fox provides what viewers want.
Your quote tells me you need professional help. I had nothing to do with you writing comments on this site. I am not a warlock casting a spell for you to watch Fox. Fox does not have powers of suggestion either.
Your delusional outlook on Fox is at the least signs of your paranoia.

Bill Hedges of MO 1:16AM January 08, 2011

I am sorry, but I have to respond to absolute and total stupidity. Fox controls our TV news and viewer’s choice? You mean Fox controls NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and all radio stations? Fox sends out mind control waves that forces people to watch? Fox controls Keith Olberman and Katie Couric? How does fox block or control Joy Behart and Bill Moyer? Does the New York Times check with Fox before printing an opinion? Did Chapin get this approved by fox before publishing? By the way Fox gives liberals a voice on their network; remember it was NPR that fired Juan Williams, because he was able to express his liberal views on Fox. More proof of the saying that liberals believe in free speech, as long as it is something they agree with.

kewaal of GA 11:45PM January 07, 2011

Pursuant to Scalia's originalism view of the constitution, he is pretty accurate in his response to the question. Indeed, the question posed to him actually has the answer in it and he is just confirming it. At the time of the 14th Amendment, the vision of the amendment, again, at that time, had nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation. Thus, discrimination on that front, at that time, was not conceived of to be prohibited, otherwise protection against such probably would have been in the constitution or the bill of rights to begin with, but it wasn't. Hence, Scalia's originalist view is accurate. No hypocrisy. Per the corporations argument, corporations existed when the constitution was signed and, under the law, corporations, and many other business associations, are legal persons that have legal rights, such as those provided for or rather protected in the bill of rights (e.g. free speech).

Chad of UT 11:33PM January 07, 2011

You state "Chartered Companies, the predecessors of corporations, have been around for more than 200 years. Modern corporate law relies on many of the legal precedents regarding chartered companies." This has nothing to do with what I said, which was that corporations, unions, etc, were never in the constitution. I never suggested that unions or "leftie" organizations should be considered people. This is not a black and white issue, but free speech is not the same as overturning almost 100 years of legal precedent that says the "free" speech has to have limits when corporations such as fox noise can control our tv news viewers choices, political candidates, and, soon, the right to block other viewpoints, i.e., net neutrality.

Hatestupidpeeps of CA 11:07PM January 07, 2011