Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Scalia at it again.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Scalia at it again. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:29:37 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in a recently published interview that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not prohibit discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110104/us_yblog_thelookout/justice-scalia-women-not-constitutionally-protected-from-discrimination

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:37:25 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well SHIT!!!! We don't want these ignorant fucks legislating from the bench!!!!!!

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:43:12 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline 		Of course, he is correct, whether you like it or not.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:45:29 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1971 that the clause protected women from discrimination.



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:45:44 AM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline 		He's kind of an idiot here.

The 19th Amendment states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." which pretty much provides that women can be (and are) "citizens of the United States".

The 14th Amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis mine.)

I don't see how, even under the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and the law, one could claim that the 14th Amendment bars racial discrimination but not gender discimination. It's pretty much all or nothing.



_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:49:31 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

He's kind of an idiot here.

The 19th Amendment states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." which pretty much provides that women can be (and are) "citizens of the United States".

The 14th Amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis mine.)

I don't see how, even under the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and the law, one could claim that the 14th Amendment bars racial discrimination but not gender discimination. It's pretty much all or nothing.




Correct. Its nothing.

"without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property.

Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally.


_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:50:37 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1971 that the clause protected women from discrimination.




And they are always right, and never legislate from the bench.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:51:49 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		While that may be the considered opinion of an insurance peddler, past rulings would tend to cast a pall on your legal acumen. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:52:13 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Correct. Its nothing.

"without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property.

Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally.


Which means, according to you, the US can return to the tradition of owning slaves.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:57:18 AM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Correct. Its nothing.

"without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property.

Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally.



But that is a different position from Justice Scalia's position. He didn't say that the 14th Amendment affords no protection to anyone. He said that it provides no protection based on gender or sexual orientation - the implication being that it continues to provide protection to discrimination based on race (the generally accepted legal position).

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 11:58:21 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		And why shouldn't it?

Didn't a republican president use the full force of the federal government to void the constitution and defy what was essentially a states rights issue?  Isn't that one of the icons of the conservatives?

Seems to me they were agin states rights, before they were for states rights.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:00:07 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Correct. Its nothing.

"without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property.

Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally.


Which means, according to you, the US can return to the tradition of owning slaves.


No, it doesnt mean that. But we know you failed logic 101, so thats no surprise.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:01:57 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		So tell me great guru... whats the difference between racism and sexism as far as the constitution goes?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:06:42 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Correct. Its nothing.

"without Due process of law" means laws can be passed by States, just like they pass other laws that deprive criminals of life/liberty/property.

Protection is equal if you can discriminate against any group equally.



But that is a different position from Justice Scalia's position. He didn't say that the 14th Amendment affords no protection to anyone. He said that it provides no protection based on gender or sexual orientation - the implication being that it continues to provide protection to discrimination based on race (the generally accepted legal position).



AFAIK he was silent on race, not that he agreed it provides protection based on race.

Remember that SCOTUS has also ruled that discrimination on any basis is permitted if the basis is one that represents a bona fide impediment to the performance of the job.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:07:17 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And why shouldn't it?

Didn't a republican president use the full force of the federal government to void the constitution and defy what was essentially a states rights issue?  Isn't that one of the icons of the conservatives?

Seems to me they were agin states rights, before they were for states rights.


You're talking about Lincoln's suspending Habeas Corpus and imprisoning the Maryland legislators to stop them from voting, right?

_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:07:55 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

So tell me great guru... whats the difference between racism and sexism as far as the constitution goes?


There is none, since the Constitution doesnt mention either.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:10:10 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Ah so you dont view slavery as it was practiced in the US as racism.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:10:12 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		At least that, and in other issues there was a kansas-nebraska act in force already---several times he trampled states rights, and was accounted a hero.  One reason they made a posse comitatus act, I should think.  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:22:15 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ah so you dont view slavery as it was practiced in the US as racism.


Your inability to think logically shines through once again.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Scalia at it again. - 1/4/2011 12:23:40 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		And you are avoiding he topic once again.

Gotta admit, you are the expert at saying alot, without saying a damn thing at all.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Scalia at it again. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094