Part IX: Equal Protection of the Law - Sex Discrimination and Other Types

An Introduction To Constitutional Law Video Library: Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), Craig v. Boren (1976), U.S. v. Virginia (1996), Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985), Romer v. Evans (1996)

Sex Discrimination on the Burger Court

⚖️ Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

⚖️ Craig v. Boren (1976)

⚖️ U.S. v. Virginia (1996)

"Heightened" Rational Basis Scrutiny

⚖️ Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985)

⚖️ Romer v. Evans (1996)

Comments

[CJColucci]

Sex discrimination on the Burger Court? Too bad Sandra Day O'Connor isn't around to tell us about it.

[ReaderY]

I continue to think that “heightened” rational basis hates them.

Everybody who wants to do something others don’t like and want outlawed thinks that the reason is that the others are irrational and hate them. Freestanding “heightened” rational basis without a textual basis for heightened scrutiny is simply an invitation to partisanship.

Its most fundamental flaw is that it is always those so self-centered that they are blind to opinions other than their own who are least able to see reason in what others think, and hence who are quickest to declare their neighbors irrational. “Heightened” rational basis encourages the judiciary to use its powers for partisan ends. It fosters division in the country by encouraging people to declare their neighbors hateful and irrational and to turn to courts seeking a judicial imprint on this designation. It discourages treating ones neighbors with respect and discussing and negotiating and resolving differences by agreement. It impedes democratic self-government. It fosters a factional society whose factions have contempt for each other.

[ReaderY]

Sorry, I continue to think “heightened” rational basis scrutiny applied to classes of judge’s own choosing with no textual basis in the constitution is not only illegitimate but has been terrible for this country.

This particular line of Supreme Court jurisprudence may not have started, but it greatly encouraged and normalized the business, so common today, of regarding those one disagrees with as enemies, traitors to the country, not right in their heads, and not deserving of being treated with respect.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice White in Cleburne argued the group in question did not meet the criteria of heightened scrutiny.

Not just the politically powerless test. For instance:

They are thus different, immutably so, in relevant respects, and the States’ interest in dealing with and providing for them is plainly a legitimate one.

Justice Stevens’s concurrence honestly notes that equality cases were decided on a “continuum of judgmental responses to differing classifications” and the concern for animus by looking at the purpose and effect of each practice is an important criterion.

Doctrinal categories have their place but ultimately in practice tend to be only so successful.

The reach and breadth of the law can be a factor. Compare the criminalization of a single act (Bowers) and a wider policy against the use of civil rights remedies (Romer).

Thanks for providing the videos in an easily accessible format.