Gawker Calls Scalia an 'A-Hole' as He Questions Women's Rights Under the 14th Amendment
It should be no surprise that Antonin Scalia's legal perspective differs from that of Gawker, the (in)famous news and gossip site with a snarky twist. But it never ceases to amaze me just how much ammunition the conservative Supreme Court justice gives the site, as he shares his views, seemingly, with every single publication out there. This time, Gawker analyzed an interview with California Lawyer where Scalia offered his take on the 14th Amendment (and other matters):
California Lawyer: 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?
Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. 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 ...
Gawker says, "Surprise, surprise! There is no line in the Constitution that reads, 'ATTN: ANTONIN SCALIA JUST SO YOU KNOW WOMEN ARE AFFORDED THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AS EVERYONE ELSE FYI" and "This is not, of course, a surprising take on the Fourteenth Amendment from Scalia, but it's always nice to see him talk about what an asshole he is."
Gawker is fairly relentless in its Scalia coverage, unusual for a site that generally focuses on the the Lohans and the Fergies of the world, along with the latest cute puppy or baby videos. At the same time, no matter your perspective on the Constitution, it seems strange to call a Supreme Court justice an "asshole."
Brendan McKenna is Law.com's news editor.
Posted by Laurel Newby on January 4, 2011 at 01:43 PM | Permalink
| Comments (11)