Dahlia Lithwick at the XX Factor highlights the assholedom that is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who thinks violence against women is "not that serious an offense."
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case about the reach of the Federal Gun Control Act and whether it includes someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence....Courtesy of the LA Times' David Savage, here's a report of oral argument, which evidently went poorly for the proponents of disarming wife beaters. Of note in the transcript is the following exchange between Justice Antonin Scalia and Nicole Saharsky, the Justice Department lawyer arguing for the stricter interpretation of the law.
JUSTICE SCALIA: And this was misdemeanor assault and battery, wasn't it?
MS. SAHARSKY: Yes, that's right. I mean, I really--
JUSTICE SCALIA: So it's not that serious an offense. That's why we call it a misdemeanor.
MS. SAHARSKY: Well, I mean, certainly the offense is this particular case was serious. The charging document reflects that Respondent hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked here in the ribs--
JUSTICE SCALIA: Then he should have been charged with a felony, but he wasn't. He was charged with a misdemeanor.
Wow. Nothing quite like dismissive nastiness when it comes to beating up women!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Justice Scalia: Domestic Violence is "not that serious an offense" .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10412
How is it dismissive when he says "Then he should have been charged with a felony, but he wasn't." Should is the important word, he didn't say domestic violence isn't serious, he is making a comment about the wrong change being applied.
I agree. I think he's saying that a misdemeanor isn't serious (by definition), not domestic violence, and that if someone is seriously abusing another person to the point where that person shouldn't have the right to own a handgun, it should be considered a felony.
Exactly. I think you could just as easily interpret these words to suggest that this sort of violence should, de facto, be characterized as a felony.
I'm no fan of Scalia, but the argument is about the relationship between misdemeanors and felonies.
scalia is evil, but the bigger problem for me in this case is that domestic violence is prosecuted as "misdemeanor." so are a lot of sexual assault cases. our culture views domestic violence as "not that serious," not just scalia.
This is exactly right. Misdemeanor assault + domestic violence is still a misdemeanor in most states.
That aside, Scalia should choose his words better, and this wouldn't be the first time he's been dismissive of domestic violence.
Scalia would be a purist. He believes in the black letter of the law--even at the expense of human lives. He may be an ass, but his opinions are fun to read and some of the best law writing I've come across.
scalia is evil, but the bigger problem for me in this case is that domestic violence is prosecuted as "misdemeanor." so are a lot of sexual assault cases. our culture views domestic violence as "not that serious," not just scalia.
As much as I dislike the guy, Scalia seems right here. The guy should have been charged with a felony if the assault was that severe.
Then the guy could have been punished as a felon.
But taking away rights based on how we would have liked people to be charged is bad way to approach law.
The real problem seems to be asshole DAs who are cutting abusers these plea deals where a wife-beater stays a non-felon.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Conservative, Evil, Anti-Intellectual, Anti-Feminist, Bu$h Tea-Bagee Maximus.
What do you expect from a Catholic Christofascist? Misogyny is the main purpose of their superstition.
One of the main tenets of the big three desert sky daddy religions is the inferiority of women. It shows in their every action from denying us education until the 19th century to denying us the vote 90 years ago.
The anti-abortion thing is pure faith based misogyny.
Further Scalia is a member of the ultra misogynistic fanatical cult Opus Dei
Wow, so far this week we've insulted Muslims Mormons and Catholics in comments...I guess that's equal opportunity of a sort.
Seriously. Don't be religious. I'm not very religious, but broadly painting religious people as fascists is close-minded, intolerant and shouldn't be tolerated in progressive spaces. It's hypocritical and ugly.
I'm not a fan of the particularly rude comments about religion, but Christianity (and most religions) and misogyny are inextricably linked. When people's opinions and beliefs are dictated by a belief system, it's counterproductive to not bring that belief system into the discussion.
It should certainly be discussed. However insulting a group as a whole, such as equating Christians, Muslims or Mormons with fascists hardly invites a positive discussion. It will certainly drive off members of the group in question and discussing what's best for interfacing an absent group is rarely productive or educational.
A lot of the basic tenets of these religions are fascistic---so, why should these real fine fascist features be left out of the precious “discussion”?
What the "basic tenants" of any religion are is pretty subjective. I doubt many will argue nationalism is at the core of many religions so your charges of fascism are inaccurate, at best.
No one is saying problematic beliefs can't be discussed but painting a large group of people with one large brush is never useful or accurate.
Now, call me a Republican and go away.
Why is it that one can write an open letter to Non-Muslim White Westerners (see previous entries), but somehow the non-religious think they will get through to the religious by taking turns insulting belief systems? I'm all for outside perspectives, but if I said your feminist ideals were wrong and need to be completely tossed (instead of revised) because they were a bane on society, gosh, I think people might have a problem with that ('cause that already happens).
My undergrad school has a feminist Religion professor writing a book about this topic, actually (Professor Caryn Riswold of Illinois College if you're interested, but it's not published yet). She pointed out that religion is something people just aren't going to discard and that the majority of the American population is religious (and one of the three Judeo-Christian faiths). If you're going to tell all these people their religion is wrong and they need to get rid of it, you're going to have a hard time convincing them of anything to do with feminism.
It might be better to work within the structure of their religion and support their own ideas for looking at equality (somewhat like the writer for the quoted article was saying).
I mean, Ms. just had an article about Roman Catholic priests and birth control. You might be surprised to learn that not everyone believes what the Vatican says. And I've spent a day with the Dominican Sisters of Springfield; I was so happy to learn how much they discuss issues like women in the priesthood (totally normal Sisters, and they were upset over how little power they felt they got in the church. And it's not like they didn't do anything about it either...).
Basically this big speech boils down to a simple philosophy about walking in other people's shoes. Just because you think something is beyond repair doesn't mean other people aren't willing to fix it. And telling them to throw it away instead of saying, "Well, here's what color paint I think would look good" just won't be as effective.
Last week I was the victim of a religion based hate crime.
The good Christians in California denied me my equal rights in a public lynching.
No gods, no masters.
He seems to be fine in this case. As others said he seems to be talking about how misdemeanors by definition aren't serious. I don't read it as him saying domestic abuse isn't serious.
They key is that you did READ it . . . You didn't just assume it said what you'd like to be angry about.
I agree the problem is that domestic violence is often argued down to a misdemeanor. People shouldn't have their guns taken away for misdemeanors (whether they should have guns at all is another story).
They should have guns taken away for felonies. And hitting women should be a felony, not a misdemeanor.
I agree with the theory and all. The problem is that a bunch of these should-be felons are now going to get their gun access back.
I agree with the majority here. While he states it in less than poetic terms, he makes a valid point. For him to personally decree that this instance of misdemeanor assault deserves a felony punishment is overreaching. What should happen is to change the law and make domestic violence a felony act.
I dunno, Jessica. Scalia's an ass, but this seems like a misreading of what he actually said.
He seemed to be saying that the person should have been charged with a felony for beating his spouse and not a misdemeanor.
I don't like Scalia, but I would be extremely worried if he was willing to punish a misdemeanor with a felony-level punishment.
Besides, as others have said, a misdemeanor isn't that serious an offense (as compared to a felony.) That's the definition of a misdemeanor.
However, I disagree with the idea of classifying any and all domestic violence as a felony. Obviously, this case seems like it should have been charged as a felony, but blanket laws like that are very dangerous.
Gender bias is very much a part of the law.In England a man who kills his wife is charged with manslaughter, of course it is deemed a crime of passion and yet a woman that kills her husband after years of abuse is charged with murder. Domestic Violence is not taken seriously. We may socially that is wrong for a man to hit a woman but socially we support patriarchal laws like this that institutionalize difference and marginalization. We cannot be surprised that law which was written by men routinely works to service men.
Well that's awful. I'm curious how much it's carried over into US law.
People have used the Domestic Violence Survivor Syndrome/Battered Woman's Syndrome to support a defense of justifiable self-defense in the cases similar to what Renee mentioned, but because self-defense is based on _imminent_ danger (i.e., someone's charging at you with a knife) the results vary depending on how sympathetic the case is. If you want case cites, I can try to find them for you, if you're interested.
I agree that there's a lot of gender bias in the law, but I don't think that example is the best one... Homicide in a sudden rage is usually considered manslaughter, and suddenly discovering marital infidelity is considered justification - but it can be on either side, with either spouse killing the unfaithful spouse. But with years of provocation, there's been sufficient time to re-consider, so that's what bumps it from manslaughter to murder.
Incidentally, the attitude on domestic abuse being justification for manslaughter in a final-straw sense is changing, albeit slowly.
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I have heard stories like yours with the genders flipped.
And indeed, the law was written to protect wife-beaters. Because there is no such thing as a moral man, and all men are linked in a collective consciousness that serves to protect one another from the law.
Scalia is precisely correct. Kudos to a judge who will decide based on the letter or the law, not on his personal fee-fees.
Scalia merely pointing out that this individual, for whatever reason, was convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony. It's not the court's job to decide if it was "right" or "wrong" to do so. Regardless of how heinous the attack was, the law holds misdemeanors to be less serious than felonies. The distinction is especially important when it comes to firearms law and determining who is a prohibited person.
The job of the supreme court is not to set the laws. If the law said that that is a misdemeanor, it is a less serious crime under the law. Indeed, Scalia did note that from the description it was mischarged, and should have been a felony, but he can't sit there and pretend it was a felony when it was not.
He's doing his job. Ours is to change the law so he can do so in the best possible way.
As for the law... Domestic violence should be only relevant in the same way hate-crimes should be relevant. Ie, if you beat your wife, the crime is assault, not some random DV charge, and your punishment is the same as if it was some random guy in a bar. It doesn't even preclude crimes of passion that way-- if the random guy in the bar provokes you, it can be considered a crime of passion, too. But the DV part should come in later, when they are sentencing, and should increase the final sentence.
I'm with everyone else...I LOATHE Scalia...he's awful awful awful. but I don't get what's so bad about this particular quote. I think you're twisting his words. I think he was just describing the difference between misdemeanor and felony, and he even said he should have been tried for felony. The problem, I guess, is with the way the law is written in general, not with Scalia.
yeah, i'm with pretty much everyone here.
scalia is a first-class d-bag, but he's not acting like one in this instance. if anything, he seems to hint (whether intentionally or not) that probably a lot of domestic abusers could be charged with misdemeanors when really they should be charged with felonies.
the practical effect of this does suck, but the blame doesn't lie with scalia, who wasn't responsible for this man's original conviction.
I agree with most of the other commenters. If anything, it sounds like Scalia is criticizing the misdemeanor charge, not the appellant or her attorney. This kind of distinction between felony and misdemeanor charges is something I would expect from any Supreme Court justice, not just purists like Scalia.
Kinda seems like he's criticizing the person who made the decision to charge this particular man with a misdemeanor, not the woman. The charge is supposed to (ideally) reflect the facts the the crime, and Scalia (at least here) seems to be pointing out that here, that really hasn't happened.
As a liberal feminist Christian, I get very angry when people like Pat Robertson misrepresent my religion and the principles of equality, love and acceptance it was founded upon. I get equally angry when people who haven't bothered to do their research assume that Christianity is inherently and unavoidably misogynist.
Many people use Christianity to support misogyny just as many people use feminism to support misogynist agendas (ahem, Sarah Palin). At it's core Christianity is about love and the New Testament (Jesus) is relatively progressive when it comes to gender issues. So just as we encourage people to look past inaccurate media perceptions of feminism, I would encourage you to look past inaccurate media perceptions of Christianity and look at the good, progressive things so many people are accomplishing through drawing on values taught to them by faith.
God's message is "love me or I torture you for eternity", and what is that if not domestic violence on a cosmic scale?
And that's not even counting all the other horrible things God does (or orders done) in the Bible...
Is it possible that your understanding of the bible might be... limited?
Ok everyone here seems to not have read the beginning of the story.
The whole point of this hearing is whether to include misdameanor offenses within the scope of the Federal Gun Control Act. The Justice Dept Lawyer is arguing that there are offesnes that are serious and that are being charged as mesdameanors. The factt hat Scalia is flat out saying "misdameanors aren't that serious" is presuposing that the whole case is a moot point.
How can a court hear evidence that misdameanors should be included in an Act if the court members already think that those misdameanors are not serious?
IF Scalia was really such a black letter of the law guy he would be furious that offenses that are felony quality are being charged as misdameanors. Instead he is making excuses for and supporting it.
Instead is is basically saying "woman, you are saying it was a bad beating, but obviously it wasn't, or he would have been charged with a felony. Next."
The WHOLE POINT of this case being before the SC is that these misdameanor assaults ARE SERIOUS.
I actually worked on a brief for a Philadelphia case about the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" and I'm with you in spirit-I think ANYONE convicted of a crime of violence should not be allowed to own a gun. At all. Ever.
But...gun ownership, whether or not you believe the 2nd Amendment is the shiznit, IS a Constitutional right. So I think the other posters who have mentioned this have a good legal point; to take away a Constitutional Right based on a misdemeanor is...harsh. Especially when you consider that this ruling will become precedent-the issue is the charging decision.
The whole point of this hearing is whether to include misdameanor offenses within the scope of the Federal Gun Control Act.
No. The crux of the case is whether the Lautenberg Amendment to the GCA applies strictly to those convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as the law states. That is, only to those convicted under a domestic violence statute, or if it also applies to anyone convicted of simple assault or battery if the victim happened to be a spouse, etc.
The guy in question was convicted under a simple assault statute, not a domestic violence statute. He's trying to say that he shouldn't have been convicted of gun law violations because the Lautenberg Amendment doesn't apply to him. And as much as it pains me to say it, under a strict textual reading of the law, he's probably right.
The law is poorly written, and needs to be revised. But that's not the court's job. As Scalia said, "People are governed by the law that is passed, not by the law that Congress intended to pass."
That was directed towards Louise by the way. I thought I replied to it....but apparently not....
That said, this article really upsets me because the issue wasn't whether the guy should have been charged with a misdemeanor or felony, it was whether people who have misdemeanors from domestic violence should be allowed to own guns. Anyone who abuses their wife or girlfriend (felony or misdemeanor) should lose the right of owning a firearm- they have proven they are not responsible. Holding the right to own a gun over a woman's right to be safe from a demonstrated abuser is reprehensible.
I assume you're not stupid, so you seem to be arguing in awfully bad faith here. The defendant was charged (not by Scalia) with a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a minor, or "not that serious" offense. When the vicious abuse was described, Scalia pointed out that it should have been charged as a felony, also known as a serious offense. Scalia was pointing out that the domestic attack as described should be classified as a major (felonious) attack, not a minor (misdemeanor) offense.
Scalia's a terrible Justice and I hope without hope that he decides to retire during the next 8 years, but that's no excuse to go around lying about what he said. He's not up for reelection, you know, so slandering him isn't going to do any good.
Reiterating what a lot of people are saying... Really really don't like Scalia but the "not that serious" is in reference to the charge, not domestic violence. He's right, a misdemeanor charge is intended for crimes that are not particularly serious. If the crime committed was serious, then it should have been a felony. Scalia has absolutely nothing to do with what the initial charges were, his job is simply to determine if the legal process followed the constitution.
These kind of misleading posts discourage me from reading this site. How is this any different than conservative sites intentionally taking things out of context to make feminists look bad? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Scalia, so why not stick to those?