close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110106232518/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/scalia-fourteenth-amendment-dems-women_n_805297.html
 

Democrats, Women's Rights Leaders Blast Scalia Comments On 14th Amendment

First Posted: 01- 6-11 02:02 PM   |   Updated: 01- 6-11 02:20 PM

What's Your Reaction?
Health Care Overhaul

WASHINGTON -- Leaders of the key women's-rights groups joined congressional Democrats at the Capitol Thursday to warn that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had issued "a wake-up call" when he said the U.S. Constitution does not protect women from discrimination on the basis of gender.

The groups promised to relaunch a decades-old push to pass an Equal Rights Amendment, a movement that fizzled out in the early 1980s.

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution proscribes laws that "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," but Scalia recently told an interviewer that "nobody ever thought ... it meant" protection for women.

Lawmakers said Thursday that Scalia's statements suggested that his presence -- and influence -- on the Supreme Court could fundamentally threaten women's rights should a relevant case come across the docket.

"If he can convince four others to follow him, you could overturn the progress of the women's movement for the last 40 years," Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said. "That's quite a wake-up call."

As House members read through the Constitution inside, National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill flipped through a pocket-sized Constitution to read the Fourteenth Amendment.

"A man in power like Antonin Scalia insists the word 'person' does not apply to half of the population of the United States," O'Neill said. "As long as there are men in power in this country who keep women down, we need an explicit guarantee of equality in the constitution."

Story continues below
Advertisement

Lawmakers and advocates said that guarantee should come in the form of an Equal Rights Amendment. A version of such an amendment has been around for decades, and fell just three states shy of ratification after being passed by the House and Senate in 1972.

The amendment could have a better chance now, said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), its sponsor in the upper chamber.

"If we look at the political realities of the number of women in this country, they can clearly create a powerful movement for ratification in the states," he said.

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said timing is particularly important as Republicans set their eye on budget cuts that would threaten programs such as Social Security, which more women than men depend on as a safety net.

"The need to clarify this is very important as you look at women at the lower end of the economic spectrum" she said. "We're going to see this Congress tinker with the safety net in a way that will have a have a disparate affect on women."

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter and Facebook! Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Leaders of the key women's rights groups were joined by Democrats at the Capitol on Thursday to warn that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had issued "a wake-up call" by saying wome...
WASHINGTON -- Leaders of the key women's rights groups were joined by Democrats at the Capitol on Thursday to warn that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had issued "a wake-up call" by saying wome...
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
Loading...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
789
Pending Comments
9
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (20 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IHateTheGOP   0 minute ago (6:22 PM)
Scalia should be taken out in back of the court house and .........
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
madasamarchare   4 minutes ago (6:18 PM)
Scalia is right - which is why we need an ERA. I recall that when the issue came up in the late '70s, the conversati­on quickly became re-routed toward a discussion of which bathroom women would have to use if it were passed. (!) People all over the country worried that it meant beauty salons would all be closed down, that women would be forced to play on the NFL and high schools would have to adopt coed locker rooms. We'll see conservati­ves co-opting the conversati­on and running down those same old roads when it comes up again.

Just for your informatio­n, here's how it reads:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriat­e legislatio­n, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratificati­on.
johnr49   10 minutes ago (6:12 PM)
I don't think anyone's commented on something that Scalia was quoted as saying in the original article regarding abortion, which was that it was fine to pass laws restrictin­g abortion because abortion is not mentioned in the Constituti­on.

The Court in Roe v. Wade clearly stated that laws which infringed on a woman's right to privacy violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and were, therefore, unconstitu­tional, so Scalia is basically saying that he does not respect judicial precedent and implying that, if given the opportunit­y, the current Supreme Court might well overturn that decision.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
prodemlib   10 minutes ago (6:11 PM)
The TeaGOPers have little respect for women outside the pro-creati­on realm. Any woman who supports them is denying her own rights.
johnr49   3 minutes ago (6:19 PM)
The term "Stepford Wives" springs to mind.
jusathot   12 minutes ago (6:10 PM)
"Look the badness for true" who is sorry now, for listening to self-cente­red, purchased women women like Phyllis Schlafly? All the women who would start their sentences with, "I'm not a feminist, but..." get it together, and pass the ERA.
ampdem   14 minutes ago (6:08 PM)
Corporate bought and paid for pig. What's he doing on the supreme court? Oh yeah he is representi­ng/defendi­ng the rights of Corporatio­ns against we the people. Impeach? Can he be impeached? Or doese he get to sit on his fat a*$ and mess up this country for the rest of his life term?
birdlives2010   21 minutes ago (6:00 PM)
Take heart ladies. Given the Citizens United case, you don't need the ERA, just have each one of you incorporat­e as a corporatio­n, then according to Scalia, you have all the rights of a person.
photo
scooter   27 minutes ago (5:55 PM)
Impeach him for cryin out loud!!!
photo
libwithaclue   29 minutes ago (5:53 PM)
It's Fat Tony Robes ova heeeear.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Veneita   36 minutes ago (5:45 PM)
I posted the link for scalia's comment but it disappeare­d. Let's try it again: http://www­.callawyer­.com/story­.cfm?eid=9­13358&evid­=1.

The argument he makes is one-sided. You can apparently make laws to take away women's rights b/c they are not protected. Conversely­, you CAN'T make laws to protect their rights.

Do women have to be given rights in the Constituti­on? What about natural law that that Jefferson spoke of and the inalienabl­e rights that man can't take away?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turukano   34 minutes ago (5:47 PM)
The question is all in the definition­s. You can argue what are inalienabl­e rights and what natural laws apply.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Veneita   25 minutes ago (5:57 PM)
One could certainly argue that but neo-cons deal in moral absolutes. And unless by men Jefferson men anatomical men then I think women are subsumed in natural rights. They certainly are subsumed "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 only reference to men is in the granting of voting rights. Ergo, if men were intended in both section 1 and section 2 of the 14th amendment, why only use that noun in Section 2?
photo
SuperBenFranklin   42 minutes ago (5:39 PM)
Most judges use the law to form opinions.

Scalia forms opinions, then twists the law to back them up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turukano   40 minutes ago (5:42 PM)
Only because you do not see his point of view. If he was a liberal justice doing the same thing, you would call him Thurgood Marshall.
photo
Cards423   34 minutes ago (5:48 PM)
You're earning your money tonight!
photo
SuperBenFranklin   33 minutes ago (5:49 PM)
Sorry, there is having a point of view and cherry picking cases, and then there is tossing out your point of view to stop an election so your guy wins. There is a difference­.
WhatDaBleep   46 minutes ago (5:35 PM)
Scalia reminds me of J. Edgar Hoover - who was said to wear womens underware and travel with a male companion - everywhere­. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turukano   44 minutes ago (5:37 PM)
I love how myths get started. You can say the same about any public figure since you have to prove nothing.
apiazza   37 minutes ago (5:45 PM)
Take Obama's birth certificat­e for instance..­..
Duppy   49 minutes ago (5:33 PM)
This guy should resign. In fact, all Republican­s on the supreme ct should resign.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turukano   44 minutes ago (5:38 PM)
Why? Make a case. Otherwise, you are just a parrot.
Rrhain   10 minutes ago (6:12 PM)
What part of Scalia's comments did you overlook? The case was made. What more do you need?
philss   50 minutes ago (5:32 PM)
scalia has become a disgrace and between him ,chief justice roberts and justice thomas have made this supreme court the most political ever
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turukano   37 minutes ago (5:44 PM)
Research the Burger and Warren courts. I am thankful for we had them but they were extremely political.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ernie Evil   51 minutes ago (5:30 PM)
I know Republican women have their blinders on, but this is what your party represents­. You just have to open your eyes. The puppeteers are just using you to get what they want and your usefulness is waning.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turukano   51 minutes ago (5:31 PM)
Who said this was a conservati­ve or progressiv­e argument? It is a matter of law.
codemo   48 minutes ago (5:33 PM)
It was a conservati­ve argument. If it is only a matter of law, then why do we need judges who are paid to interpret them?

Twitter Edition
BERJAYA
BERJAYA