Tag Archives: Antonin Scalia

How conservatives learned to stop fighting the 14th Amendment, and what it could mean for gay marriage – Slate Magazine

How conservatives learned to stop fighting the 14th Amendment, and what it could mean for gay marriage – Slate Magazine.

The Meaning of Equal

Conservative originalists are rethinking their narrow reading of the 14th Amendment.

Posted Monday, Dec. 12, 2011, at 1:47 PM ET

Justice Antonin Scalia created a firestorm last winter when he opined that the 14th Amendment does not protect women against discrimination on the basis of sex. The truth is that this view has been, until recently at least, a bedrock conviction of conservative originalists. In that sense then, the bigger news came at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in October when, confronted on his remarks by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Scalia backpedaled and suggested that the Equal Protection Clause did indeed protect women from state-sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex. For a Justice famous for his blunt and unchanging conservative views, Scalia’s fancy footwork was fascinating, and telling.

In fact, Scalia’s backpedaling is part of a significant reassessment of the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause that is transforming the debate over the Constitution. This debate, which is happening in conservative legal and academic circles, could have a dramatic impact on the outcome of critical cases—including Perry v. Brown, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 and the denial of marriage equality to gay men and lesbians. After a long detour to the California Supreme Court on the question of whether the case can even go forward, Perry is heating up, with the Ninth Circuit hearing oral argument last week on two separate issues, and a decision expected on the merits in the months to come.

[…]

Read the full story here: Slate Magazine

Leave a comment

Filed under 14th Amendment, Constitution, discrimination, issues, Supreme Court, USA

Hollywood Dishonors the Bard – NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Contributor

Hollywood Dishonors the Bard

ROLAND EMMERICH’S film “Anonymous,” which opens next week, “presents a compelling portrait of Edward de Vere as the true author of Shakespeare’s plays.” That’s according to the lesson plans that Sony Pictures has been distributing to literature and history teachers in the hope of convincing students that Shakespeare was a fraud. A documentary by First Folio Pictures (of which Mr. Emmerich is president) will also be part of this campaign.

[…]

In dramatizing this conspiracy, Mr. Emmerich has made a film for our time, in which claims based on conviction are as valid as those based on hard evidence.

[…]

Read the full story here: The New York Times

1 Comment

Filed under Movies, notes and musings from a big country

Sex, Violence and the Supreme Court – NYTimes.com

Sex, Violence and the Supreme Court – NYTimes.com.

July 7, 2011, 8:30 pm

Sex and the Supremes

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, notes and musings from a big country, politics, USA

– The Washington Post

Scalia and Thomas disagree about children and free speech

The Washington Post

The First Amendmentdoes not convey a free-speech right when minors are involved.
[…]
“The Framers could not possibly have understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include an unqualified right to speak to minors,” Thomas wrote. “Specifically, I am sure that the founding generation would not have understood ‘the freedom of speech’ to include a right to speak to children without going through their parents.”

Thomas’s argument was the logical extension of his “originalist” position that the Constitution’s provisions be discerned by the most likely public understanding at the
time it was adopted.

[…]

Read the full story here: The Washington Post

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, notes and musings from a big country, USA

Supreme Court strikes Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ to publicly financed candidates – The Washington Post

Supreme Court strikes Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ to publicly financed candidates – The Washington Post.

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of Arizona’s public campaign financelaw, the court’s latest decision that the right of political speech trumps government’s attempts to restrain the power of money in elections.The court rejected Arizona’s system of providing “matching funds” to candidates who face big-spending opponents or opposition groups. The system has been used in every statewide and legislative election since voters approved it in 1998, after a period in which the state told the court a “seamless interplay between fundraising and lawmaking cast a web of perceived corruption over the Arizona capitol.”

Read the full story here: Washington Post

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, notes and musings from a big country, politics, USA

Unabhängigkeit der Justiz (7)

Wie die New York Times berichtet, zweifelt eine führende liberale Gruppe [Common Cause] die Unabhängigkeit von Clarence Thomas und Antonin Scalia [beide Richter am Supreme Court] im Verfahren um die Finanzierung von Wahlkämpfen an, weil sie (zu) Enge Verbindungen zur Koch-Gruppe haben, die ganz massiv mit Spenden zugunsten republikanischer Kandidaten in den letzten Wahlkampf eingegriffen hat und weil Clarence Thomas’ Ehefrau Virginia eine konservative politische Grupppierung (mit)begründet hat, die gegen die Obama Regierung agiert. Common Cause will erreichen, dass das Verfahren, in dem im vergangenen Jahr der Roberts Court eine richtungsweisende Entscheidung zur Ausweitung der Wahlkampffinanzierung durch Corporationen getroffen hat, aus diesem Grunde neu aufgerollt werden muss. Dies wäre absolutes Neuland für die Justiz  der USA, in der Richter einen sehr großen Spielraum haben bei der Entscheidung, ob sie sich selbst als befangen aus einem Verfahren zurückziehen.

Leave a comment

Filed under notes and musings from a big country, USA

Unabhängigkeit der Justiz (6): Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia & the Tea Party

In der New York Times vom 18. Dezember 2010 [zum Artikel geht es hier: NYT] wird angezweifelt, ob es – im Sinne der richterlichen Unabhängigkeit – gut ist, dass Antonin Scalia, einer der Richter am obersten Gerichtshof der USA [US Supreme Court], beim ersten “Contitutional Seminar” der Tea Party als Sprecher auftreten wird, insbesondere weil dieses Seminar hinter verschlossenen Türen stattfinden wird und damit keine Transparenz gewährleistet ist, und außerdem weil die Tea Party in Bezug auf die Verfassung extreme Positionen vertritt in Belangen, die durchaus vor dem obersten Gerichtshof landen können. Schon jetzt hat Scalia den Spitznamen “Justice from the Tea Party“.  Und selbst wenn er tatsächlich unbeeinflusst bleiben würde, ein “G’schmäckle” – wie dei Schwaben sagen würden, hat es allemal. Dem Ansehen des Supreme Court kann es jedenfalls nur abträglich sein.

Zusatzinformation zu Scalia und seiner Auffassung von richterlicher Unabhängigkeit: er ist derjenige Richter am obersten Gerichtshof, der sich vom damaligen Vizepräsidenten der USA, Dick Cheney, der selber erhebliche finanzielle Interessen in der Firma Halliburton hatte, im Privatflieger zu einem exklusiven Golfturnier fliegen ließ und es kurz danach nicht für nötig hielt, sich selber [denn anders als bei uns kann es nicht auf Antrag, sondern nur freiwillig durch den jeweiligen Richter selbst geschehen] für befangen erklärte und sich vom Prozess zurückzog, als ein Verfahren gegen Halliburton cor dem obersten Gerichtshof anstand.

Leave a comment

Filed under notes and musings from a big country, USA