Basically the article discusses "Justice" Scalia's literalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. You remember the 14th Amendment right? The one that was ratified to abolish HUMAN ENSLAVEMENT? Yeah, that one. Well, "Justice" Scalia (I can't bear to use the word justice and Scalia in the same sentence without quotation marks, for reasons too obvious to mention) thinks that the part of the Constitution that says: "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" does not prohibit discrimination against women. He goes one step further and says that if states want to prohibit discrimination based on gender, they can do that but it's not in the Constitution.
Um, hey, Scalia, in case you didn't realize, if the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit states from discriminating against women, then states could just as easily pass laws that systematically DO discriminate against women. And barring protection from that state's constitution, there would be no one to stop them. Fan-freakin-tastic. Cause life as a women has always been so easy, what would we ever need constitutional protection for??
The thing that really gets me most about this isn't just the gross misogyny being spewed by a fat old white man sitting on the highest court of our nation, it's his complete disrespect for the precedence set by the very Court on which he sits. The Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment applied to gender discrimination in 1971 and basically what you're telling me "Justice" is that if you had your way, you'd prefer to piss all over 40 years of the Court's history rather than uphold a woman's right not be systematically screwed because of her gender.
It's hard enough to be a female in the legal profession and in the world in general. And reading things like this really sucks the wind out of me. Isn't there any hope that I can someday live in a world where my vagina doesn't make me the subject of unwarranted attention and criticism? I know I should feel grateful for the work that has been done for women to be as close to equal footing as our male counterparts in all of history, but frankly, its not enough. None of the pressures of work, life, being smart and successful, child bearing, child rearing, somehow taking care of one's own body and mind and everyone else's at the same time is put on men, at least not from where I sit or from where I see many of my female counterparts sitting. Society is accepting of men as tunnel-visioned providers, but if you're a woman, no one tunnel is available or acceptable. If I work and never have kids, I'm a failure as a woman-mother. If I work, have kids, go back to work and take time off of said work to take care of my kids from time to time, I'm a failure as a women-worker. If I work, have kids, go back to work and don't take time off of work from time to time to care for my kids, I'm a failure as a woman-mother. And finally, if I work, have kids and never go back to work and instead take care of my kids all the time, then I'm a failure as a women-worker and woman-intellectual. Them's the choices. And that's WITH the equal protection clause place.
And this would all be wasted words on the Honorable Mr. Fathead, so I really have no idea what the solution to this is. But, for now, I am going to let the words of Ms. Hannigan run through my head and lull me into a more peaceful state...{kill kill kill kill}...oh and post this photo of the scales of justice that would make Scalia's head do one of those cartoon spins around his neck.
Oh god, this just upped my love for you by like 4,000%. I hope this is your triumphant return to frequent blogging?! -mash
ReplyDelete