,
6 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Inez, I'm gonna let Justice Antonin Scalia respond here:
"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."
"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."
.@InezFeltscher And I assume you agree with Justice Scalia. The Constitution does not strictly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Classes of protection under strict scrutiny pertain to race, national origin, religion, and alienage. Not sex.
.@InezFeltscher This is why the 14th Amendment is not enough. The Supreme Court has declined to elevate sex to strict scrutiny based on their reading of the 14th Amendment. Sex only receives "skeptical" scrutiny. The ERA would make sex a protected class under strict scrutiny.
.@InezFeltscher I'll let Justice Scalia conclude this one:
"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date..."
"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date..."
.@InezFeltscher "...All you need is a legislature and a ballot box... 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."
So, there it is.
So, there it is.
.@InezFeltscher And here's a question to you: is Justice Scalia wrong, and if so, why?
