Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:00 PM ET, 01/ 4/2011

Justice Scalia and the 14th amendment

By Ann Telnaes

Related stories

Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination
Justice Scalia to give Congress lecture on Constitution, Separation of Powers

By Ann Telnaes  | January 4, 2011; 8:00 PM ET
Categories:  Human rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Lindsey Graham proposes permanent U.S. bases in Afghanistan
Next: Speaker Boehner discounts CBO on cost of health-care repeal

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:


Scalia's legacy will surely be scorned. He doesn't mind being scorned though. He believes his way of thinking is different. From his conduct, I surely think he is "different." Scalia sure loves guns, beer (alcohol over marijuana) and unfair killings.

If Scalia wants to duke it out with the will of We the People (and I mean real people and not corporations), then lets have at it. Scalia probably made the decision to inject himself into public debate while he was drunk and bird hunting with his brethren (Dick Cheney).

Scalia is not a bafoon. He is crazy. Wouldn't you be crazy to go bird hunting with Dick "Darkinvader" Cheney?

My attorney Kobayashi tells me that any judge who makes the appearance of impropriety needs to be impeached.

Posted by: KiazerSouze | January 6, 2011 1:46 AM | Report abuse

Contrary to mice and mouse, in this country the people ultimately determine the laws ultimately.

Posted by: jornolibist | January 5, 2011 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Worth a Thousand Words Again.

Too bad that we have such Obviously unqualified extremists on the Supreme Court.

Patriot12 . . . . . WRONG, "Patriot(?)12"
.... It is the NATION that lost . . . not just Liberals.

Posted by: lufrank1 | January 5, 2011 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Janet8, or the mouse pretending to be janet8, in this country the Supreme Court ultimately decides what laws are constitutional and what laws are not. We have that mechanism because the founding fathers were aware that the constitution can be interpreted to mean more than one thing. While I believe you believe what you say, you are wrong. I would recommend that you follow your passion for talking about the US government and actually spend some time learning about how it actually works.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | January 5, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse


When those in power ignore the provisions of the Constitution to suit their own agenda, then one can aptly perceive that those in power regard the Constitution as irrelevant.

Otherwise, the laws enacted in Congress would not conflict with the Constitution as has been the case on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: janet8 | January 5, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The irrelevance of reading the constitution out loud is all the Klein and Dionne have pointed out. The GOP, not wanting conservatives to become aware of said irrelevance, have pretended Klein and Dionne said the constitution itself is irrelevant. Stupid conservatives have obliged their chosen ones and reiterated this lie.
Anyone with an iq of more than 75 could read what was actually written and know the GOP is lying. Not surprisingly, many conservatives can't figure out how to do that so they just parrot the lies.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | January 5, 2011 10:42 AM | Report abuse

No Janet8, what is ironic is that someone who argues mice can have fully functioning human brains thinks that they can comprehend the liberal argument.
Any fool that has declared the Constitution irrelevant in modern times is no liberal. Expecting you to be able to understand that is unreasonable, I know. That does not make it any less true, though.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | January 5, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

It's ironic how the Liberals state that the Constitution is a "living" document and is irrelevant in modern times.

Then, in the next breath, they are villying a Justice by citing the Constitution as their justification for a particular issue that they interpret in that "obsolete document."

Posted by: janet8 | January 5, 2011 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Our Constitutional Rights have long been violated in America for quite some time now. The extreme and advanced methods used to do so seem to be downplayed as questionable or unbelieveable by the major media and those who play the political rivalry game which I have discovered to be nothing more than a distraction for what is now really taking place in the US. I can not understand why programs and operations taking place by our government and that negatively affect everyone are not being more fully exposed by organizations who are concentrating on the loss of our freedoms here in America. Freedom can only be had by those who completely seek the truth about the loss of it and are totally prepared to make great sacrifices to preserve it. FREEDOM and EQUALITY must be available to everyone without any type of interferences! Am I not right Ann Telnaes?

Posted by: JONAHandtheFISH | January 5, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

So the liberals continue their assault on America - The Constitution also requires we protect the sovereignty of the nation from external invasion and internal threats.

Allowing an invasion from Mexico and third world nations and bestowing rights on their "foreign national" offspring
"subject to the jurisdiction" of those foreign nations is a national security and economic threat. LaRaza is a threat from within.

Even the ultra liberal Justice Stevens recently argued for the "historical" significance embellished in the Constitutional amendments and the 14th Amendment is clear - it was written for American slaves, not LaRaza illegal alien criminals!

The liberals lost and will lose again in 2012! We INDEPENDENTS are taking back our nation! NO more abuse by the one world socialist order and their hoards of illegal alien invaders!

You lost liberals - now, as your Emperor Jorge Soros instructs, move on!

Posted by: Patriot12 | January 5, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Hurry up and die Scalia and Thomas.

Posted by: johng1 | January 5, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Scalia needs to find another job, maybe his new boss would be a woman. That would be ironic! He is like so many in Washington who are either way beyond their prime or obsessed with personal agendas.

Posted by: MyVoice3 | January 5, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

If the 14th Amendment isn't protecting women (and other classes other than race) from discrimination, well, then, convene a Constitutional Convention and write one that does!

If you impeach Scalia, you might have to impeach a couple more of the Supremes for poor judgement--if you're a private citizen. If you're a corporation, then this Court is doing a great job!

Posted by: AMarinaF | January 5, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Scalia should be impeached from the Supreme Court for such statements and thinking. He is a discrace to the American Constitution and way of life with his views of American women having no Constitutional rights esp. women serving now in the military and as they have served since the pre constitutional founding days. He must go!

Posted by: davidmswyahoocom | January 5, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse

The entire Democratic Party platform can be found in the Constitution if you just look hard enough. There are a few good recipes in there too but you've got to know where to look.

Posted by: politbureau | January 5, 2011 6:57 AM | Report abuse

Looks like Hiatt can't get everyone on the same sheet of music. EJ Dionne and Ezra Kline have been writing about the irrelevance of the Constitution and you hit people over the head with it. So just where does the old Wash Po stand on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? For it or against it?

Posted by: billybeer6 | January 5, 2011 6:09 AM | Report abuse

The United States is in very big trouble with leadership like this.

Posted by: hamelinfish | January 5, 2011 5:14 AM | Report abuse

We demand legislation without representation just like it says in the 14th Amendment!

Posted by: politbureau | January 5, 2011 4:01 AM | Report abuse

Is it something in the water that makes conservatives be blind to equal protection under the law, civil rights law and the Ledbetter/Sheppard bills? Scalia lecturing congress on constitutional limitations should be followed by Sotomayor to correct him.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 4, 2011 10:01 PM | Report abuse

If we go back fare enough, Italians weren't accepted as white either. Wonder if Scalia has ever thought about that.

Posted by: sunnyday1 | January 4, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

If you’re a strict constructionist like Scalia, women can’t be president because the president is referred to as “he” multiple times in the Constitution and we know that our founding fathers original intent was to limit the office of President to a man.

Posted by: EarlyBird1 | January 4, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company