iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

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

First Posted: 01/06/11 02:02 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

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."

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."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
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 sai...
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 sai...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,099
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
06:45 PM on 01/18/2011
There may be less [more] to Scalia's comment than meets the eye. Already several decades ago the Sup Ct held that gender discrimination has a medium level of protection under the Equal Protection clause (less than the "strict scrutiny" for races etc, but more than the mere "rational basis" need for a distinction to survive a challenge of discrimination).
So it depends on the context of his comment. Could merely reflect this existing jurisprudence.
Of course, (depending on your POV) having a lower scrutiny than "strict" can be reason to adopt the ERA (& thereby overrule this standard.)
03:37 PM on 01/10/2011
At WVFC - we have a roundup of some of the reactions here (http://womensvoicesforchange.org/with-respect-justice-scalia-women-are-real-persons.htm), but we also give our two cents on Justice Scalia - and one of our favorite posts is "Yes, Scalia, There was feminism in the 19th century" located here (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/yes_scalia_there_was_feminism_in_the_19th_century).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
01:17 PM on 01/07/2011
Will Palin oppose it?
iridium53
Semper Fi
01:02 PM on 01/07/2011
Lots of hysterical ad hominem attacks.

Justice Scalia, whom I loathe, was accurate in his comments - the authors of and approvors of the equal protection clause did not intend it at the time to apply to women. This was well before women won suffrage rights.

It seems to me that, if women, or any other group, want explicit recognition of rights in the Constitution, they can, and should, muster the money and people necessary to get the votes necessary to make the changes.

Whining about Scalia's comments achieves nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
12:42 PM on 01/07/2011
There are some activist judges on the bench who should, under law, be removed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gingersaff
feelings are not facts
12:38 PM on 01/07/2011
According to Scalia a corporation is a "person". Therefore, the meaning of "person" has been expanded from all white males to all white males and all corporations. I don't see that outlined specifically in the Constitution anywhere, so I'd like to know what the framers' original intent was regarding gigantic multinational entities that want to throw our elections.

Michelle Bachman, aside from being an enormous fool, must also be one heckuva self-hating female. Her admiration for Scalia seems to ignore his obvious misogyny
photo
gwinegarden
She's an Arctic Wolf
12:31 PM on 01/07/2011
Conservative believe that you can interpret any part of the Constitution except the 2nd Amendment.
photo
Nelle
bah-weep-grahna-weep-ninny-bon
12:18 PM on 01/07/2011
Could the Equal Rights Amendment, if it passes, also include protections for gays by mentioning sexual orientation?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
american-dolt
Divide and Conquer
12:13 PM on 01/07/2011
I find the Majority of Supreme Court Justices very scary.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
12:18 PM on 01/07/2011
Of all the things that have been borrowed from the US Constitution by other countries, not one of them has adopted lifetime tenure for judges.

Possibly the second biggest mistake in the Constitution.
marilyn 63
LEVEL ONE NETWORKER
03:42 AM on 01/08/2011
i am all for the supreme's not having lifetime appointments . these are human beings and as we age our thinking becomes rusty and i don't give a dam.. and some even in their younger thinking are bad enough Alito, Roberts, Thomas, but Scalia leads the charge. they become to comfortable with very bad rulings citizens united was a stab in the peoples back. that we could do nothing about. wheres our redress?
06:29 PM on 01/18/2011
Cuts both ways: Lack of tenure allows public sentiments to sway new appointments. And a majority of times public sentiment is more conservative.
(Look at the Colorado judges recall, after a pro-gay decision.)
12:04 PM on 01/07/2011
Scalia is a troglodyte.
photo
Cleo McDowell
1/32 African American... and Proud of my Heritage
12:02 PM on 01/07/2011
Why can't someone state Historical Fact without enraging all the Leftists.......

The 2/3 Congress who vote for the 14th Amendment and the 3/4 states who ratified it NEVER INTENDED....

For it to set a National Abortion Mandate or any other Liberal 'sex equality' policy... In 1868, there were anti abortion laws in virtually every state, and addition abortion restrictive laws were added after its ratification. Womens right to vote was not enshrined in the Constitution for another 50 years.....Furthermore, if it was stated that this law was setting national abortion policy at the time of its passage, it most assuradly would not have been ratified........

For it to set National Gay Marriage or any other 'gay policy'.... Homosexuality was illegal in many states.....Furthermore, if it was stated that this law was setting national gay policy at the time of its passage, it most assuradly would not have been ratified........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
01:19 PM on 01/07/2011
Lectures are enraged when they are in the right, mister! Obviously you are not female.
photo
Cleo McDowell
1/32 African American... and Proud of my Heritage
12:02 PM on 01/07/2011
For it to set an self arbitrary birthright citizenship policy for illegal aliens..... the 14th Specifically excluded anyone 'not under the jurisdiction' of the US from becoming a citizen at birth.. Illegal Aliens have shown that they don't believe themselves to be 'under the jurisdiction' of the state where they reside as their first act was to ignore the laws of the Jurisdiction.....

Scalia did not give his opinion on any of these issues.... Thats irrelevent..... Nor should the opinions of a judge affect his jurisprudence.....

What Scalia is saying is that the social issues of today simply were not addressed in the 14th amendment..

...No matter how much Liberals wish they were....
12:06 PM on 01/07/2011
ignoring the law does not make one "not under the jurisdiction" of the US
-if it did Bernie Madoff would be out and about-

try again
photo
Cleo McDowell
1/32 African American... and Proud of my Heritage
12:22 PM on 01/07/2011
So tell me, sir, why were Indians Excluded from birthright citizenship as well as foreign diplomats? Don't pull the race card either as the entire purpose of the amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves......

The 14th amendment specifically includes children of people who owe primary allegiance to a Nation other than the United States... And I'm sorry but you simply can't unilaterally declare allegiance right before you have a child on US soil. There is a government established procedure to legal residency and Naturalization... And the fact that Illegal Aliens choose to IGNORE these laws is entirely relevent to the citizenship status of their children....
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
12:22 PM on 01/07/2011
If I ask my three-year-old niece to give each person an equal number of cupcakes, she can do it without requesting any further clarification.

That's because "equal" is a very plain and simple concept that's easy to grasp, but it's very difficult for bigots to hold.
photo
Cleo McDowell
1/32 African American... and Proud of my Heritage
12:32 PM on 01/07/2011
And what we need sir are more people like you to tell the rest of us who is 'equal' and who is 'more equal'......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blevinsdd
12:00 PM on 01/07/2011
The 14th amendment doesn't exclude women from protections against discrimination, etc. It does say 'persons' and only a mysoginist would believe that that women are not included in as a person. I worry that if we need to specifically inlcude women in the 14th amendment, we'll have to specifically include women for whatever other rights they should and do enjoy. If people don't believe that personhood includes ALL persons, regardless of sex, then we really are sliding backwards culturally. As a side note, I believe that amending the constitution is a normal process of a vibrant democracy and sometimes it can be necessary. I just worry that if we respond to Scalia in this manner, he or another right-winger can continue with the next 'right' enumerated in the constitution that women currently enjoy and say it doesn't include them and we'll have to come up with another amendment ad nauseum.
photo
Cleo McDowell
1/32 African American... and Proud of my Heritage
12:29 PM on 01/07/2011
So according to the Leftists, the 1868 14th Amendment set National ABORTION Policy, While Womens suffrage had to wait another 50 YEARS?

At least you Leftists have you priorities in order......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
01:22 PM on 01/07/2011
Explain automatic weapons, right bagger.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blevinsdd
10:33 PM on 01/07/2011
If had been up to us progressives we wouldn't have had to wait so long for any of our progressive agendas. Unfortunately we have had to contend with obstructionist right-wing blowhards, such as yourself, who deem it necessary to try to keep your boots on our throats for as long as possible.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
11:55 AM on 01/07/2011
Scalia believes that in 1868, nobody thought women were people?

Um, wow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blevinsdd
10:42 PM on 01/07/2011
interestingly enough, some states after the American Revolution, did allow women to vote. It was shortly changed later so that all women were disenfranshised. So it could be argued that even some of the founders agreed that women should be allowed to vote.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
zdeedle
Keep safe all who gather here.
11:51 AM on 01/07/2011
forget the ERA, it won't happen. rather have an amendment that changes the terms of the SCOTUS to ten years. period. that spans any president, and limits the damage people like alito, roberts and scalia can do (i don't include thomas, as putting him on the court was basically giving scalia two votes, as thomas has only voted differently from scalia once or twice in all that time)
06:34 PM on 01/18/2011
See my reply to american-dolt [12:13 PM on 1/07] (under crustybastard 12:18 PM on 1/07)
("Cuts both ways . . .")