Scalia: Supreme Court Shouldn’t ‘Invent New Minorities’ For ‘Special Protections’

Conservative jurist Antonin Scalia says the Supreme Court shouldn’t be in the business of inventing new minorities so they can get “special protections.” The 77-year old Supreme Court justice who has sat on the bench since 1986 was speaking to a large group in Bozeman, Montana, at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society.

“In an apparent reference to the court’s recent decisions on gay marriage and benefits for same-sex couples, Scalia said it is not the function of the courts to create exceptions outside the Constitution unless a majority of people agree with them,” an AP report at the Huffington Post notes:

“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Scalia told a packed hotel ballroom in southwestern Montana.

But what Scalia of course failed to mention was that on marriage, the majority of Americans for several years now have made clear they support same-sex marriage. And on issues like what Scalia would call “special protections” for LGBT workers, not only do the vast, vast majority of Americans support legislation like ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, they already believe it is the law. Sadly, LGBT workers can be fired just for being LGBT in the majority of states across the nation.

The Federalist Society is an extremely conservative organization that was founded originally in 1982 as a college students’ group. Scalia was their first faculty advisor. They, like Scalia, believe the Constitution is a document that cannot be interpreted and does not change. Only the exact words that are printed in the Constitution can be used, say the “textualists.”

Just a few weeks after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling that struck down as unconstitutional section three of DOMA, Scalia announced that the Supreme Court was unqualified to decide on “homosexual sodomy,” and he suggested that the U.S. is approaching Nazi Germany.

Scalia is the co-author of four books, including Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court’s Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice and Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.

 

Image via Wikipedia