Scalia says woman's rights not guaranteed.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Jan 4, 2011.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    All? I don't know how happy clams are meant to be, but the link didn't make me particularly happy (or sad, come to that) because the 14th Amendment isn't in force here. :laugh:
     
  3. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    David, you're lucky!

    That you don't have to figure out those oblique and obtuse slams in the original post...

    The only thing feminism has done is to relegate women to being just another worker instead of cherished partners for whom we "Gentlemen" open doors for and protect as if their worth is far above rubies.

    In short, real Gentlemen don't need any 14th amendment to treat women properly and fairly...

    And, on amount of "Law" can make a gentleman out of an oaf!
     
  4. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    SMM, I agree with your sentiments about real Gentlemen not needing a 14th Amendment to treat women properly and fairly, and agree, too, that laws cannot make oafs into gentlemen.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    While I haven't a clue about why this concept has anything to do with happiness I can understand Scalia's thoughts.

    The 20th Amendment only guaranteed women the right to vote. Since gender was not specifically mentioned in the 14th amendment I guess it could be interpreted that women are not technically covered by it.

    This would be a simple Supreme Court ruling to sort it out though.
     
  6. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The link carries one to an absolute pile of drivel.
     
  7. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consider the source of this thread.

    Nuff said. :laugh:
     
  8. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,835
    Likes Received:
    115
    Well, I was happier than a clam (as DL said, it's hard to define a clam's joys) before I read the piece and came away with my happiness intact.

    I found the author of the article a little biased. And I found myself agreeing, for the most part, with Justice Scalia.

    I suppose that the part of the amendment in question was section 1.

    It's the "equal protection" part that's debatable. Surely everyone understands that this amendment was to ensure that slaves were now citizens and that the old "3/5's" counting principle abolished (in section 2).

    I truly don't see any protection based on gender here. What my reading comprehension is telling me is that this is protecting the equal treatment under the law of all Americans based on their citizenship - not their gender or any other specified characteristic.

    I found the author of the piece to be a little miffed at Scalia's response and because he couldn't refute the opinion, he criticized the politics of the man and conservatives in general.

    Scalia was right. If certain groups need a special protection from something that is peculiar to their individual group, then that's what the state legislatures are for. For example, I know that many here do not understand when I say that I, to a certain and small degree, embrace feminism. There isn't a man on this planet that I hate, envy, despise, or want to be. I'm happy with being female. I appreciate doors being opened for me. I appreciate gentlemanly behavior. I have people here who don't talk to me anymore because I use "Ms." in front of my name and that's OK - don't sweat it. I don't. But let me give you an example of what I believe is what Scalia is talking about.

    Today, all 50 states, to a large extent, have abolished the Marital Rape Exemption laws. That's a good thing. But each individual state had to take those awful laws off of their own books. It didn't start until 1976 and wasn't completely removed from all state laws until a few years ago. 30 years. It took 30 years for all 50 states and the District of Columbia to do this. It would have been nice if we had a one time Constitutional amendment that abolished these laws that exempted sexually abusive husbands from being charged with a criminal act and abolished those laws in one fell swoop instead of 30 years, but if we were to have a Constitutional amendment for every single law that encompasses the law books of every single state, then the Constitution would be the size of a small truck and would be, in my opinion, impotent due to its effectiveness being lost in its sheer enormity and impossibility to understand.

    Besides - state laws change fairly regularly. The Constitution, as should be, not so much.

    Scalia is right.
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a Pacific North West tradition that clams are happy.
     
  10. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    While hiding down in the briar patch - taking pot shots at everyone else that is willing to take a risk?
     

Share This Page

Loading...