g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 1 Posted on Advocate.com January 03, 2011
Scalia: Constitution Doesn't Protect Women, Gays
By Advocate.com Editors
Antonin Scalia x390 (GETTY) | ADVOCATE.COM
In an interview, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia says the Constitution
doesn't promise protections for women and gays.
California Lawyer asked Scalia the following question: "In 1868, when the
39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I
don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex
discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean
that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?"
The ultraconservative judge replied that the Constitution doesn't require
discrimination against minorities, but that it certainly doesn't prohibit it
.
"Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant," Scalia said of the 14th
Amendment protecting women. "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."
Scalia's responses were met with sharp criticism by some. "In these comments
, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex
discrimination, that's up to them," Marcia Greenberger, founder of the
National Women's Law Center, told The Huffington Post. "But what if they
want to pass laws that discriminate?" | g********d
发帖数: 4174 | 2 把WOMEN和GAYS一起歧视，太好了，看看谁敢同意这个大法官。 | p**s
发帖数: 1891 | 3 没看懂他的逻辑.
认可当时有局限性, 现在更应该修正呀.
"In 1868, when the
39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I
don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex
discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean
that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?"
【在 g********d 的大作中提到】
: 把WOMEN和GAYS一起歧视，太好了，看看谁敢同意这个大法官。
| f********g
发帖数: 770 | 4 Scalia的意思是amendment 14并未要求反对基于sex(这里sex不仅被解读为gender，也
被解读为sexual orientation）的歧视，但是也没有鼓励这样的歧视。所以他认为受歧
视人群如果以法律为依据来要求平等，首先应该对amendment 14进行修正。
而批评他的人认为，如果修改法律，以此来确保消除基于sex的歧视当然最好，但是
Scalia话里的另一层意思是，也可以修改法律明确规定可以通过sex进行歧视。
这涉及到法律解读的问题，即法律中无明文规定的，属于合法还是不合法的，在中国这
样的现象也普遍存在。南方一些省份对于中共的红头文件的解读为，如果没有规定不能
做，那就是能做。而中西部一些省份则是没有规定做，就是不能做。而Scalia对法律的
解读显然对sexual minorities(也包括妇女）是不利的，因为他的意思是法律没有规定
反对sex discrimination，其实就是可以歧视，因为如果你要想不歧视，那就得首先修
改法律，规定不能歧视。 | m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 5 Scalia是个极端保守派，他只从利于他自己的观点的角度去解读。
【在 f********g 的大作中提到】
: Scalia的意思是amendment 14并未要求反对基于sex(这里sex不仅被解读为gender，也
: 被解读为sexual orientation）的歧视，但是也没有鼓励这样的歧视。所以他认为受歧
: 视人群如果以法律为依据来要求平等，首先应该对amendment 14进行修正。
: 而批评他的人认为，如果修改法律，以此来确保消除基于sex的歧视当然最好，但是
: Scalia话里的另一层意思是，也可以修改法律明确规定可以通过sex进行歧视。
: 这涉及到法律解读的问题，即法律中无明文规定的，属于合法还是不合法的，在中国这
: 样的现象也普遍存在。南方一些省份对于中共的红头文件的解读为，如果没有规定不能
: 做，那就是能做。而中西部一些省份则是没有规定做，就是不能做。而Scalia对法律的
: 解读显然对sexual minorities(也包括妇女）是不利的，因为他的意思是法律没有规定
: 反对sex discrimination，其实就是可以歧视，因为如果你要想不歧视，那就得首先修
| p**s
发帖数: 1891 | 6 还有Clarence Thomas
【在 m******1 的大作中提到】
: Scalia是个极端保守派，他只从利于他自己的观点的角度去解读。
| X*******H
发帖数: 720 | 7 他是极端“原宪法主义”的人，对法律的信仰已经在个人好恶之上了。
不过还是蛮讨厌他这么说话的。 |
|
