Yeah yeah, I never thought the Supreme Court was Supreme, like, you know, Diana Ross.
When I first read about what Nino Scalia recently said I googled his name to find out more about him.
He seems to be (imo,un)fairly consistent in his interpretation of law.
Here's what he said that set me off:
"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?
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."
Here's what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says:
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.
So I guess according to Supreme Court Justice Scalia's interpretation of law, only white heterosexual males qualify as citizens for protection under the law? He does believe that giant corporations, unlike women and gays, should be considered as people. It wasn't real clear to me on what in the Constitution he based that decision.
From what I read today, it did become more clear where his mind is going with this kind of talk. Michele Bachmann has asked him to preside over a Constitution class for tea party Congress people.
If you google 'scalia gesture', you don't need to be Italian to understand what he thinks of his critics.