October 08, 2011
Pompous politician gets schooled by Justice Scalia (and Breyer, too!)
My contempt for the vast majority of politicians knows no bounds, and the specimens known as Congressional Crapweasels are at the top of the malodorous dungheap, the Senate comprising the cow pat balanced precariously atop that pinnacle of pulchritude and pomposity.
It's almost impossible for me to stomach listening to the self-satisfied, smug platitudes of a senator holding forth at a hearing, grilling a witness from a list of questions prepared in advance by anonymous staffers, smiling as she pelts her would-be victim with Gotcha! queries, teeth showing as she moves in for the kill, awaiting a flustered response.
Sometimes, however, the politician gets a tiger by the tail, someone who knows more than his questioner, someone who isn't cowed by her position.
Sen. Diane Feinstein (Dem-Calif., of course) got more than she bargained for when she decided to try and beat Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia like a pinata for his views on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, as it applies to women's rights.
Diane Feinstein: And now I want to ask you something about the 14th Amendment and if both of you could respond to it. It's simple, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, not shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Is a woman included in that definition?
Justice Steven Breyer: Yeah, a woman's a person. I think that's well established.
Justice Antonin Scalia: Yeah, the issue is not whether a woman's a person. The issue is --
Feinstein: You're right. Go on.
Scalia: The issue is, what constitutes equal protection?
Feinstein: Yes, all right. Are women included?
Scalia: Of course they're included --
Feinstein: Well, let me ask you --
Scalia: But does equal protection mean that you have to have unisex toilets, --
Feinstein: No, no ...
Scalia: I mean that's the kind of question you have to get into --
Feinstein: Your quote, Mr. Justce, in California, "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's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey, we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."
So, why doesn't the 14th Amendment, then, cover women?
Scalia: The 14th Amendment, senator, does not apply to private discrimination. I was speaking of Title Vii and laws that prohibit private discrimination. The 14th Amendment says nothing about private discrimination, only discrimination by government.
Justice Breyer: Yes.
Feinstein: So -- oh, I see what you meant.
Scalia: Yeah.
Feinstein: Okay. All right ... if I can, let's go to Justice Scalia ....
I especially liked when Justice Breyer agreed with Scalia that Feinstein's premise was wrong: The 14th Amendment applies to government, not private discrimination. The expression on her face was priceless.
It was a perfect Emily Litella moment, the greatest instant deflation of a gasbag since the Hindenberg visited Lakehurst, New Jersey in '37.
Posted by Mike Lief at October 8, 2011 07:35 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Though we rarely agree politically on much, I agree with you about this post as deeply as one can agree, except to the extent that you compare Feinstein to the Hindenberg. That is unfair to the Hindenberg.
My favorite part of your post is the first paragraph:
"My contempt for the vast majority of politicians knows no bounds, and the specimens known as Congressional Crapweasels are at the top of the malodorous dungheap, the Senate comprising the cow pat balanced precariously atop that pinnacle of pulchritude and pomposity."
How this country has allowed government, at every level, to degenerate into what it's become is truly testament to the sheer stupidity and laziness that is the American populace.
Posted by: BullButz at October 8, 2011 10:21 PM
It's nice to know there's something I haven't gotten wrong!
Posted by: Mike Lief at October 8, 2011 10:25 PM
Scalia dropped the hammer on fuzzy thinking. And Breyer concurred, weakly. And Feinstein changed the subject. All of which were definitively characteristic of each individual.
Posted by: The Little Coach at October 9, 2011 04:00 PM
"The greatest instant deflation of a gasbag since the Hindenberg visited Lakehurst, New Jersey in '37." Mike, you certainly know how to turn a phrase (not to mention invoke an image)!
Posted by: Stacy at October 14, 2011 10:09 AM
It's not obvious at all that Feinstein never went to law school. /sarcasm
Posted by: Chris Seabock at October 22, 2011 11:38 AM