Thread: Constitution may not guarantee women's rights, Scalia

This is an amazing revelation by the far right justice Scalia. The 14th amendment, he claims, does not point to women's rights. He claims it's okay by him but the constitution, in his opinion,leaves women's rights up to the various legislatures of the nation.

Slippery Justice Scalia Says Women's Rights Are Not Guaranteed by the Constitution | AlterNet

I don't know what specifically is meant by "women's rights" here.

-- so right that he doesn't appear to advocate equal rights for both
genders

Wow. Shoddy journalism there, because that's not what he said at all.

Originally Posted by Feslin

I don't know what specifically is meant by "women's rights" here.



Wow. Shoddy journalism there, because that's not what he said at all.

Look for more on the topic. It is lousy the way it stands, I bet this will get some more web space as this develops.

I gather this was about 'abortion' without mentioning 'abortion' by name. It was the 14th amendment that was crucial to Roe v. Wade.

I do think that his allusions to the climate of the country are right on. He seerms to be harkening back to the shibboleth of 'states rights' that segregationists love so much.

Originally Posted by Spooky

I do think that his allusions to the climate of the country are right on. He seerms to be harkening back to the shibboleth of 'states rights' that segregationists love so much.

Not following you here. Please rephrase.

As noted in the link, it's clear Scalia is emboldened by the advances of the Tea Party and wants to return to the days where women couldn't own property, much less vote, and the original version of the Constitution's Article I, Section 2, para. 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights - TIME

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Not following you here. Please rephrase.

As noted in the link, it's clear Scalia is emboldened by the advances of the Tea Party and wants to return to the days where women couldn't own property, much less vote, and the original version of the Constitution's Article I, Section 2, para. 3:



Supreme Court Justice Scalia Takes On Women's Rights - TIME

Apparently the first piece did not represent the Justice unfairly. I consider his viewpoints to be reactionary. I think that is the kindest terminology I can get together to describe it.

As far as states rights advocates go, they used the same kind of strategy and thinking to promote segregation. Like if a community voted to ban green people, then green people would be legally discriminated against. They would have no recourse but to live where, or in a section of town, green people were not discriminated against. States rights advocates have this as an underlying way of bypassing the constitution.
Hence I refer to the phrase 'states rights' as a shibboleth.