Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Blog of Rights
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Constitutional Law
: Blog of RightsThe Constitution Protects Women Despite Justice Scalia's Views
By Lenora Lapidus, Director, Women's Rights Project
In a recent interview with California Lawyer, Justice Scalia stated that women are not protected by the Constitution. Scalia told the magazine:
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.His comments fly in the face of 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1971 case, Reed v. Reed, it has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored by conservative Supreme Court justices, this principle has been reaffirmed.
Indeed, the text of the Constitution simply states that the government shall not deny "any person" the equal protection of the laws. The 14th Amendment does not specifically mention race and the language is intentionally broad. Clearly women fall within the category of "any person."
Scalia's views are extreme and out of step with the mainstream. He says that nothing in the Constitution prohibits discrimination against women; rather, it is up to legislatures to ban discrimination if they so choose. However, the Constitution provides a safety net to protect against the will of the majority when fundamental rights — such as the right to equal treatment — are at stake.
If the Constitution did not prohibit discrimination against women, the government could treat women like second class citizens in a wide range of areas. States could legally bar women from serving on juries, women could be prohibited from owning property, the government could pay women less, and women could be excluded from public schools — all things that happened in the past, before women's rights to equal protection were enforced.
It is troubling that a justice on the Supreme Court continues to espouse the view that women are not protected by the Constitution and worrisome that he brings this perspective to his decision-making. Luckily, the majority on the court — and of the public — do not share this view. We have come too far to turn back the clocks.
(Originally posted at Feministing.)
Full post as published by Blog of Rights on January 06, 2011 (boomark / email).
Anna Nicole Smith's Legal Troubles
Court cases and legal issues related to Anna Nicole Smith
Domestic Violence
Emotional and verbal abuse qualify as domestic violence
Domestic Violence
Emotional and verbal abuse qualify as domestic violence
Domestic Violence
Steps to avoid
Katrina Victims See Justice, Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Katrina Victims See Justice Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Lipitor
Review of Studies Show No Significant Benefit in Women
Texas, USA
alleging the Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act of 2003 violates several provisions of the Constitution.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Scalia on the Constitution and ... Pizza
Dershowitz and Campos on Justice Scalia and the Death Penalty
"Scalia's Constitution" Has No Moral Authority
Justice Scalia at Hastings: Sex, Lies and Originalism
What is the right protected in the Heller dissent








