Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

Yes read that headline again -- Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination.

But it is not just women.  "In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."


The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.


What does that mean?  Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.   Greenberger said that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.


And not just women remember.  Jews, Latinos, homosexuals, the disabled.  All shit out of luck with Scalia.  Unless of course, we make laws to prohibit that discrimination (you can't just rely on the Constitution.  No we would need the majority to decide women need protection.  That the disabled need protections.

Too bad for women.  Just ask Brett Farve if women need protection.