Antonin Scalia: 14th Amendment Protects Everyone, Not 'Only The Blacks'

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Huffington Post

Antonin Scalia: 14th Amendment Protects Everyone, Not 'Only The Blacks'

The Huffington Post | By Paige Lavender Posted: 10/15/2013 2:36 pm EDT

During oral arguments on an affirmative action case on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the 14th Amendment protects everyone, not "only the blacks."

The quote was tweeted by the New York Times' David Leonhardt:

David Leonhardt ✔ @DLeonhardt

Scalia: "The 14th Amendment protects all races" -- not "only the blacks."


1:12 PM - 15 Oct 2013

The high court debated Tuesday whether voters can ban affirmative action programs through a referendum. The case is centered around a 2006 Michigan vote that approved a ballot initiative amending the state's constitution to ban affirmative action programs in higher education.

Scalia has brought race into previous arguments. In February 2013, Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/antonin-scalia-blacks_n_4101636.html

[Blue_Tires]

1. If Clarence Thomas was black, he'd probably take offense to that...

[annabanana]

2. AAAK!!! ....DUzy! . . . . .n/t

[sakabatou]

45. +1

I always picture him as Uncle Ruckus.

[Berlum]

3. If Clarence Thomas had any honor, he'd take offense to that. But he's a RepubliStooge

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

...and it shows...

[radicalliberal]

16. Ugh!

Ordinarily, I'd say that his conscience will catch up to him in his old age; but he obviously has none left. A traitor to his own race . . . Amazing! Decades ago I thought we had seen the last of the Uncle Toms; but they seem to have made a comeback, courtesy of the GOP.

[treestar]

56. He and every other justice ought to speak out

and condemn Scalia's remark.

[Myrina]

4. Zing!

[robinlynne]

36. oooh.

[Psephos]

58. He is black. Disparage his views, not his genetics. n/t

[warrant46]

61. His views are fascist

[Psephos]

63. which has nothing to do with his blackness n/t

[Pterodactyl]

59. Yes. Blacks must be Democrats.

It is just not proper for them to be anything else. If they are outside the party, we don't consider them black.

[LoisB]

5. "the blacks"!!!!!!! Scalia can go to hell and take that jackass he rode in on (Thomas)

with him.

[lib87]

23. I Raise my Glass to That!

The Blacks?! Why are there no laws to kick racist Supreme Court Justice scum back in the gutter where they came from?

[bemildred]

6. Scalia knows about racial entitlement, he's an example of it. nt

[TeamPooka]

40. this

[cyberswede]

7. Poor Scaila

[blockquote class="twitter-tweet"][p]It's tough being me. On the one hand, I'm racist. On the other hand, other racists don't consider me white.

— Antonin Scalia (@SCOTUS_Scalia) October 11, 2013
[script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"][/script]

[radicalliberal]

10. I had always thought (naively) that every Supreme Court Justice . . .

. . . would handle himself (or herself) with dignity appropriate to the office. I guess I was wrong.

[Brigid]

52. It isn't your fault.

It used to be that way.

[Delphinus]

50. Noooo - is this for real?

[cyberswede]

53. It's a satirical Twitter account

My all-time favorite:

Antonin Scalia ‏@SCOTUS_Scalia 26 Jun
Yesterday I voted to overturn a legislative body. Today I said it was offensive for a court to do so. The difference is fuck you.

[onehandle]

8. "I've always had a great relationship with the blacks." - Donald Trump, Impotent Non-Billionaire. nt

[Heather MC]

9. "The Blacks"

Ugghhhh we are not a blocked group of people like the borg.

And We CAN HEAR YOU!!!!

[radicalliberal]

12. Thank you, Ronald Reagan, . . .

. . . for nominating Archie Bunker to the SCOTUS.

[Heather MC]

14. Can't believe he is still Alive

Were is a nice Death by Natural Causes when you need one?

Just sayin'

[VWolf]

24. In the words of Lewis Black,

"The good die young.

But assholes love forEVER."

[BlueMTexpat]

27. Nah - Archie Bunker

had a heart in spite of all his rhetoric! And he put up with The Meathead ....

Scalia has a stone instead of a heart and no scruples whatsoever.

[radicalliberal]

29. Ya know, now that I think about it, . . .

. . . you're right!

By the way, the most likeable character in that series was Edith Bunker. She really wasn't a dingbat. She had more sense than either Archie or The Meathead. (At least that's my opinion.)

[Heather MC]

32. Does anyone ever concern themselves with "The Whites"

Like they do "THE BLACKS"

[BlueMTexpat]

35. True!!!

[ripcord]

38. Don't forget

In his own way Archie was fond of Lionel Jefferson.

[sofa king]

54. Believe it or not, he's not the best Archie Bunker Justice.

But here's a candidate:

James Clark McReynolds SC 1914-1941. Racist, bigot, anti-semite, chauvinist. He would not accept, "Jews, drinkers, blacks, women, smokers, married or engaged individuals as law clerks." He refused to attend the swearing in of the legendary Felix Frankfurter. He read a newspaper during the swearing in of Benjamin Cardozo and would hide his face in feigned shame when Cardozo spoke from the bench. He was perpetually rude and insulting, and downright hateful to female lawyers (sometimes even leaving the bench while they argued before the Court).

McReynolds fought tooth and nail to erode the 14th Amendment and the New Deal. He was very, very interested in young boys, particularly Court pages and the dozens of refugee children he adopted after the London bombings of 1940, having never married. He died alone in the hospital and not a single sitting or retired Justice attended his funeral, though some of them may have secretly returned to piss on his grave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds
______________________

But perhaps the most important part of McReynolds' legacy is that he is almost totally forgotten. His twenty-six years on the bench and 500 written opinions mean virtually nothing at all to Americans or our country's legal system. The moment his malevolent presence left the Supreme Court, he was forgotten and America moved far past him in only a few years.

That's what's going to happen to Antonin Scalia as well. The rule of law in America is a sham and always has been, but the Supreme Court Justices who treat it as such and permit that contempt to be publicly displayed, as Scalia has, are invariably shuffled off to the "don't talk about them" wing of the museum and the nation creaks forward. His legacy will be as one of the criminals who routinely bent the law to enrich his friends--like so many others before him--a legacy that is quite intentionally never mentioned again once he's gone.

[carolinayellowdog]

11. one definite article, one definite racist POS

that phrase "the blacks" tells us all we need to know

[Hubert Flottz]

13. Wouldn't it be funny if...

The democrats won the house and senate both next year and had the guts to impeach that activist POS!

[DeSwiss]

15. Hmmm... now that's a 'wily' kinda answer wouldn't you say?

- Impeach?

[Mz Pip]

17. No affirmative action in CA

This went all the way to SCOTUS and was affirmed. It was a divisive proposition but it passed by a lot. Sad.


Section 31 is added to Article I of the California Constitution as follows:

SEC. 31. (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
(f) For the purposes of this section, ''state" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

[benld74]

18. Does this guy have sons? daughters? how many and how old?

I'd really hate to hear my father speak like this if I were of school age.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

30. One son that comes to memory..

Eugene Scalia....

[cosmicone]

19. Hillary will get to nominate at least 4 supremes

if Obama doesn't get a couple more.

By 2024, the tyrannical reign of Reagan/Bush appointees will come to an end.

[Beacool]

41. If she becomes president and gets to replace Scalia, it would be sweet justice.

He is the jackass that spoke in favor of the Paula Jones civil case. He said that it would take no more of the president's time than it would take him to play a round of golf. Five years and millions of dollars later, the only offense found against Clinton, his wife and their staffers is that Bill allowed a more than willing adult to perform oral sex on him.

Drop dead, Scalia!!!!!!!!!

[coljam]

20. I saw him tap danceing

i thought i saw justice uncle Thomas doing a tap dance in blackface while justice Scalia was talking

[BillyRibs]

21. As the only White Guy in my neighborhood I get a unique

perspective of Politics. Sitting on the pourch of my next door neighbor's house I listen and fade into the back ground, during one such conversation Clarence Thomas came up. At which time I heard a chorus of voices express the statement, (Neighbor's quote not mine) "House Negro" I asked what this meant and it was explained to me. I have to agree he is! For those of you who don't know their is a link below.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASdomestic.htm

[Fearless]

22. That's right.

And if "the Whites" were being discriminated against, rest assured it would protect them in that instance.

[NoGOPZone]

25. And the First Amendment protects everyone, not only the assholes. What's your point, Tony? nt

[DallasNE]

26. "The Blacks"?

What does he mean by "the" in that context. Why would he insert that word in that manner. Why not say "only blacks" rather than "only the blacks". That wording strikes me as being openly racist and not just injecting race into the discussion. But what else can we expect from the morbidly obese Scalia.

[cristianmarie533]

28. What a truly vile, racist pig this man is.

Actually, that would be a big insult to pigs in general. I'd say this man is lower than pond scum.

[Octafish]

31. Tony the NAZI

http://wonkette.com/523321/why-is-us-america-turning-into-nazi-germany-antonin-scalia-explains-it-all

[markpkessinger]

33. 'The Blacks' -- Oy! n/t

[Burf-_-]

34. SOON

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

......soon you will be a relic of a very bygone era of justices scalia.

[Rowdyboy]

37. Simply amazing that filth like this is on the highest court in the land....

and could well stay there for another dozen years or so. Very discouraging....

[SoapBox]

44. Super ditto.

[Beacool]

39. "The Blacks"???????????

Is this how a Supreme Court Justice speaks??????

Sexist and racist, Scalia is a heck of a guy.

[SummerSnow]

42. The real Thomas

[Retrograde]

43. Even corporations!

The 14th Amendment was cited in Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad in 1888 to establish the concept of corporations as people. One of the top ten worst Supreme Court decisions, IMHO.

[ronnie624]

46. Oh my.

It definitely has a brow-raising ring to it.

[jmowreader]

47. I hope he'll remember that if President Obama has to invoke it to ward off default

[happyslug]

48. This was reported on the 15th, but the actual case is not reported on DU till the 16th

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014622090

It is one of the most important cases of this term, and its issue can explain WHY Scalia used the language he used.

The case is an direct attack on Michigan's ban on affirmative action, on the grounds it prevents people from asking their state legislatures to correct what petitioners think is a problem. In this case racial disparity and do to a state constitutional amendment affirmative action is NOT permitted in Michigan, even if it is the best solution to a clear problem (Please note for this discussion I will NOT address the issue of affirmative action is good or bad, but restrict it to what the court is facing, which is a ban on affirmative action that violates the rights of people to petition the government to address grievances?).

In simple terms, can the state forbid people form petitioning the Legislature by state constitutional amendment. As a general rule the US Supreme Court has long ruled NO, one of the rights guaranteed under the US 14th amendment is the right to petition the State Legislature in regards to anything, even if there is no hope that the State Legislature would adopt what is being petitioned for.

This is the same right to petition that was used by the US Courts in California to strike down California's anti-gay marriage law. i.e. such a law violated the 14th amendment NOT because it banned gay marriage, but that it prohibited the State Legislature from even passing a law permitting gay marriage. This prohibition put excessive duties on people who supported gay marriage from petitioning their state legislature from adopting marriage gay marriage.

Once you understand that is the issue i.e. how far does the 14th amendment cover as to such State Constitutional amendments? That can explain Scalia's question.

The 14th is one of three post Civil War Amendments that rewrote the US Constitution. There was a retreat from that rewrite in the 1880s in regards to Civil Rights, but that has reversed since the 1940s. As a Post Civil War Amendment, the main aim was to protect the newly freed slaves. Those newly freed slaves were all african-Americans (Through the Amendments were also intended to end Peonage among the Spanish speaking population of the American South West). Thus the comment has been the courts reluctance to expand the concept of Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment to other groups, but the Court has long done so (First in the case of Corporations and more recently homosexuals).

Thus Scalia's comment may just be his acknowledgment that, while the 14th was aimed at protecting African Americans, it was written to cover more then just African Americans. If that is true it is the LAW and I can NOT figure out what the level of hatred on Scalia as to this comment.

Now, Scalia is NOT a liberal, and that is enough to dislike him, but his one sentence in this case does not show anything more then he knows the subject matter. The 14th amendment protects more then just "The Blacks" and on its face, his comment only shows that legal fact.

I would expect more on the thread in regard to affirmative Action and the right to be able to petition then on a one sentence line by Scalia that mostly reflected what the law is in this case which is in front of him.

I hate to say this, but attack Scalia for what he actual SAYS that clearly shows his position as to the law, as oppose to a phase that sums up one aspect of the law, but an aspect no one really disputes. Worse, given the nature of such questioning from the Bench, it may just be a comment that he is using to ask how far beyond protecting African Americans does the 14th amendment goes. In such a question, that phase could have been made by any of the nine justices (Some may have used "the African Americans" or "The Newly freed slaves" or even "The Freedmen", the last being the term in vogue in the Post Civil War Era from newly freed slaves). All three terms could have been used in a sentence that ask how far beyond protecting African Americans was the intention of the authors of the 14th amendment.

Here are the briefs as to the underlying case:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/12-682.html

[Democat]

49. Good analysis but I think the issue is with the specific term "the blacks"

If he called Mexican-Americans "the browns" would that be okay?

[reddread]

51. what difference does it make what we call them? We own them

I found the most shocking excerpt from William Sullivan's wikipedia/biography.
While the wiki fails to explain the background of the hunter who killed him
(a state policeman's son, according to Michael Parenti's discussion of JFK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Sullivan

it does include this disgusting nugget laid bare-

"It should be clear to all of us that Martin Luther King must, at some propitious point in the future, be revealed to the people of this country and to his Negro followers as being what he actually is – a fraud, demagogue and scoundrel. When the true facts concerning his activities are presented, such should be enough, if handled properly, to take him off his pedestal and to reduce him completely in influence. When this is done, and it can be and will be done, obviously much confusion will reign, particularly among the Negro people... The Negroes will be left without a national leader of sufficiently compelling personality to steer them in the proper direction. This is what could happen, but need not happen if the right kind of a national Negro leader could at this time be gradually developed so as to overshadow Dr. King and be in the position to assume the role of the leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited.
For some months I have been thinking about this matter. One day I had an opportunity to explore this from a philosophical and sociological standpoint with an acquaintance whom I have known for some years.... I asked him to give the matter some attention and if he knew any Negro of outstanding intelligence and ability to let me know and we would have a discussion. He has submitted to me the name of the above-captioned person. Enclosed with this memorandum is an outline of (the person's) biography which is truly remarkable for a man so young. On scanning this biography, it will be seen that (Samuel Pierce) does have all the qualifications of the kind of a Negro I have in mind to advance to positions of national leadership....
If this thing can be set up properly without the Bureau in any way becoming directly involved, I think it would be not only a great help to the FBI but would be a fine thing for the country at large. While I am not specifying at this moment, there are various ways in which the FBI could give this entire matter the proper direction and development. There are highly placed contacts of the FBI who might be very helpful to further such a step. These can be discussed in detail later when I have probed more fully into the possibilities."

Please help me distinguish between the rise of Samuel Pierce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pierce

and Clarence Thomas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_thomas

but hey, who cares?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JrComme

[happyslug]

57. Brown for Hispanic Americans is NOT a historical term

On the other hand the most common term for African Americans before the 1940s was "Colored" (Negro had been popular in the 1700s and 1800s but by the 1800s implied someone straight from Africa with no interbreeding with people already in the US, thus became unpopular and replaced by the term "Colored" after the term "Freedman" fell out of usage as the US advanced from the Civil War).

Starting in the 1940s the term "Black" became popular and right now the term "African American" is on the rise for references for descendent's of slaves. Thus "Black" or "The Blacks" can be seen as terms used in reference to a set population group. The same can NOT be said of the term "Brown" for Hispanics. The terms "Mexicans" had been the most popular term till the movement of Puerto Ricans into the East Coast and Cubans into Florida pointed out Hispanics were not always of Mexican descendant. Most recent Hispanic migration has been some Central America and Southern Mexico.

Thus "Black" or "The Blacks" has some solid reference as a term for a certain population sub group in the US. Furthermore, starting in the 1940s, the older term "Colored" became seen as a negative view of African Americans and the term "Black" replaced it almost completely (and replaced the few places where the term "Negro" was still used in that time period, through "Negro" has survived as he "proper" name for that sub group as Caucasian has survived for the term "White&quot .

Historically the term "Colored" implies some white blood and the more white blood an African American had in him or her the "better" that person was viewed (Not my position, just mentioning the historical context of the term). This was found to be very divisive in the African American Community and as a group the term "Colored" was rejected for that reason. The last extensive use of the term was by the US Army with its reference to "Colored" Troops for African American Army units (The NAACP retains its name which include the term "Colored" for it was founded when the term "Colored" was the most popular name for African Americans, but beside from the NAACP no one else uses the term and have not since the 1950s, it was replaced by the term "Black&quot .

Just a comment that the term "Black" had been an acceptable term for African Americans for decades, and the preferred term till recently. The same can NOT be said of the term "Brown". While "Brown" was some times used when the terms "White" and "Black" were used, it was never viewed as a term for that sub-population group, either by others (who tended to use the terms "Mexican" or "Hispanic" instead of "Brown" for that group) or by the sub population group itself (Which like wised used the terms "Hispanic" except when you were dealing with descendent's or migrants from a specific country, i.e. Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico or another country, where terms related to that population source was used instead).

[Democat]

60. Thank you for the thoughtful reply

I agree with most of your points, but I still question in what context Scalia uses the term (historical or racist).

[treestar]

55. OMG get this idiot off the court somehow now!

You know Scalia, yes it does, but why was it necessary to enact it? Remember history class?

[mulsh]

62. He is correct. He is also a jerk, an asshole and an embarassment as a justice but

he is correct about 14 amendment protections, in a racist, dickish way of course.

edited to add that last clause.