Who needs Sharia? We got Scalia!
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 byAccording to SCOTUS “Justice” Scalia, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect women from discrimination. His fundee/wing-nut impulse to ‘divine’ the original ‘intent’ (in this case of the 14th Amendment) and ignore precedent seems more akin to Sharia law than contemporary Western Law:
Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system. There is no pre-trialdiscovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury[101] (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul)[102] Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set binding precedents[103][104][105] under the principle of stare decisis[106] and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes[107] … Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.
I bet he’s sore that he doesn’t have the power to issue fatwas. Maybe he’ll get his wish under a GOP Presidency, the last one didn’t worry about intent at all, he just ignored the Constitution altogether when it suited him.
*Update 1/5/11* Dublin Anarchist points out that by Scalia’s logic, it should be imperative to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, as the key argument against it was that women were already protected by the 14th Amendment.


