Ed Schultz talked to Salon's Joan Walsh about right-wing ideologue Justice Antonin Scalia's statement that the 14th Amendment doesn't protect protect women from discrimination.
Hey, did you hear that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't really believe in the the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Apparently, being an "originalist" means reading the minds of the framers and not interpreting what they wrote literally:
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 that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.
OK, well, all the Amendment says is that equal protection under the laws will be afforded to citizens, not "straight male citizens," or whatever distinction Scalia's making here. Scalia can be very literal-minded sometimes, like when he explains that the Eighth Amendment doesn't forbid torture because interrogations aren't "punishment." Other times, he gets fuzzier with the language; despite the fact that the government is not allowed to establish or promote religion, Scalia is OK with "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Constitution always happens to only mean whatever an ultra-conservative Republican asshole thinks it means, isn't that funny?
As Walsh pointed out, the real irony here is that this is the same man that thought the equal protection clause applied to Bush in the Bush v Gore decision.