By Marcia Coyle, Legal Times Scalia, Ginsburg Offer Amendments to the Constitution April 17, 2014 8:04 PM EDT | 6 Comments share share on linkedin Facebook share on twitter share on google+ Share With Email Send Thank you for sharing! Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided. print reprints Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg discuss their proposed amendments to the Constitution, their writing styles and government surveillance. VIEW COMMENTS ( 6 ) ADD COMMENT What's being said Sign In Terms & Conditions Chief Michael Airic White Sr, Apr 27, 2014 When Justice Scalia claims that questions never come to the SCOTUS in any variant form other than a concrete case he fails to mention that it is by choice this is done this way and that the monetary court and attorney system the U.S, is fond of using since the beginning of time is that which is requiring of dirty money. To get an audience on front of the SCOTUS one must shell out big bucks. In a perfect society Legal Aid (not just in small matters but SCOTUS level cases) would not cost - IT WOULD BE PROVIDED. I think the whole thing wreaks of Bullshit. Joe Buckstrap Apr 22, 2014 On the contrary, Mr. Scalia, America has never been more in need of an Article V Convention. Ravi Batra Apr 20, 2014 There is rare beauty on our Supreme Court, as exemplified by Justices Ginsburg and Scalia, when despite disagreements they render to each other personal respect of the highest order. The Article III branch of government is the one which works best. It is also the one that best honors Lincoln‘s promise of a government "of, by and for" the people. Without the Court being respectful, the rule of law could not be a calling and nuances would be unwelcome. Dated: 4/19/14/s/Ravi Batra Scott Neuman Apr 18, 2014 I‘d like to see the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the Bill of Rights promulgated to Congress. I stand for this in the November 2014 election. ScottNeumanforCongress.com Richard Fagin Apr 18, 2014 "That amendment, she added, ‘means that women are people of equal stature before the law.‘"No, Justice Ginsburg, the amendment read, "Equality before the law...", not equal rights or equal stature, but "equality." When the amendment appeared on the ballot in Massachusetts in the late 1970s, my immediate reaction was that "equality" would have been construed by courts to mean "equanimity of result", not equal application of the law to any particular set of facts. If a then 20 year old could make that judgment, it is inconceivable that a Justice of the Supreme Court, particularly given your political predisposition, could or would not make the same judgment.Can it. The ERA died because enough Americans came to the same conclusion that I did, even when the amendment was given an unconstitutional extension to the ratification period. Docile Jim Brady — Columbus OH 43209 Apr 18, 2014 “The failure of the push to add the equal rights amendment, Ginsburg noted, was an example of how difficult the amending process is. That amendment, she added, "means that women are people of equal stature before the law. I think we have achieved that through legislation but legislation can be repealed, altered.”An easier fix would be to deport then shoot (or shoot then deport) those who REFUSE to give women equal stature before the law .For those who NEGLECT to give women equal stature before the law , deport ☺ Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here. Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202651605161 Send Thank you! This article's comments will be reviewed.