Injustice Scalia Says Constitution Does Not Protect Women from Discrimination

"Justice" Scalia said today that in his opinion, the US constitution does not protect women from being discriminated against based on their gender. Well, knock me over with a feather!

Since the 1970s, the Supremes have applied the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause to prevent gender discrimination. What does it say, exactly?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

The last phrase, known as the Equal Protection Clause ("EPC"), is a widely used clause in American constitutional jurisprudence. Because of this clause, modern Americans think that we are all equal in the eyes of the law: "Nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." But, apparently, not Injustice Scalia. When he reads this, he must be thinking, "Hmmm. Women are not "persons," so obviously this does not apply to them."

How does this NOT apply to protecting women from discrimination? And more importantly, why is Scalia trying to lick his elbow to create gender inequality?

This has been established law for FOUR DECADES. And one major reason the Equal Rights Amendment failed to be adopted is because the Supremes - and generally everyone who can read and understand English - recognized that the EPC had already accomplished gender equality.

When all you Uptighty-Righties start railing against "activist judges," I want you to consider that happens to our laws, and indeed our society, when Injustices start ignoring court precedent to reinstate discrimination.

He claims he's not for discrimination, he's just an "Originalist" who thinks we must apply the Constitution only as the writers intended. But by his decisions, he has shown that to be as utterly false as it is silly.

In January of this year, this same Justice participated in a landmark, precedent-reversing decision, holding that corporations are "persons" and therefore may not be treated differently than other "people" in capping campaign donations. Yes, for the first time in American history, and without any Constitutional basis whatsoever, Scalia and his right-wing buddies on the Court treated corporations not just as "artificial persons," but as persons with political rights equal to human beings. So, where did all his "Originalism" go on this one? What "Originalism?" I call it "End-Justifies-the-Means-ism."

So, get this: Scalia thinks corporations are persons, but women are not.

That's just F'd up IMHO! I have other opinions as well. Such as: Injustice Scalia is a misogynistic opportunist paying homage to his corporate benefactors and the GOP that appointed him.

Couching this campaign against the American people as a legitimate constitutional philosophy doesn't change what it really is: a concerted effort to take power from individuals and give it to corporations. That's not conservative, people. That's fascism.