Antonin Scalia: Constitution Only Protects Men (Straight Men)
According to Justice Antonin Scalia, who will only rule on court cases involving robots if the Constitution lists the EXACT model number and specifications of said robot in the text, the Constitution is for men who happen to be heterosexual and NOBODY ELSE, so other humans should just "get over it." "Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't," he spat. Oh, good! So the Constitution doesn't force us to discriminate against women; it's just a sort of extra-credit assignment. But what about the Fourteenth Amendment? It only protects against discrimination of non-white men, according to Scalia. If you want rights for women or non-heterosexuals, you're going to have to have another civil war.
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. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.
IF! It is certainly a big "if." Scalia certainly doesn't give a fuck if women or gay people have rights. He will be just fine. We have these things called Supreme Court justices, and they protect people called straight men.
You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Really? Because it would seem basic equality is something that should exist in a democracy , as opposed to a republic or a "No Gurlz Allowed" clubhouse or what have you. (Also, laws have to be passed against abortion, because people have an implied liberty to do what they want with their own bodies otherwise. It's not a right that has to be laid out in law.)
But perhaps most startling: Scalia is not certain he's infallible!
I do not pretend that originalism is perfect.
Yes, you do. Isn't that the whole point of originalism?
There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot.
If you're unsure, it's best to rule against women and non-heterosexuals. Always safer just to protect people who are like Antonin Scalia.
But wait, you say. Doesn't the text of the Fourteenth Amendment protect us all?
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.
Haha, you're so dumb! By "person," the authors of that amendment meant white straight men AND also black straight men, because of the Civil War. Any other kind of living being was not a human, according to Antonin Scalia. And we have to abide by this terrific definition of human biology, because that's how people thought when they didn't know any better.
But again, if you want to kill each other in a bloody civil war and pass a new amendment to the Constitution reflecting the victory of the side that wants women and gays to be protected by the document, be his guest. Democracy! [ California Lawyer via HuffPo ]