Of course they do if one is a thinking person….but then NOT everyone is such a person…….
It is Women’s History month and all the hoopla that goes with it….we will see all sorts of programming that targets women and their contributions of the American society….this is a good thing for women are the core to the values that we are told are our desires….family, home and life in general…….
Remember the days when women had to protest to get the right to vote? Or the days of the women’s movement…the protests, the marches, the speeches, etc…..? Yes, women have come a long way baby (damn commercial that stays with you) but to some they have come too far and overstepped their place in society…..
Bet you think I am blowing smoke up your ass…right about now……you should really get out more…..there are people, people in high places, that feel that women are NOT protected by the Constitution…..yes…I said NOT!
It seems that one of our Supreme Court justices has an opinion on this subject…..one Scalia…….
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Or hear it for yourself…….
youtube.com/watch?v=M-86gg… via @youtube
I realize that we all have an opinion…right or wrong (if you agree with this dude then you are wrong)….but is this anything for a person serving on SCOTUS to go around mouthing off about? I mean what happened to the neutrality of the courts?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said this .Q In 1868 when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment I dont think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that weve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?..A Yes yes.
In all honesty, I agree with him – well, sort of… The fourteenth amendment is (like most of the “interpretive” legalese one gets in these things) as clear as mud to me, but then I’m no American and I don’t see why you need a written constitution in the first place (rather like the man says) EXCEPT in order to define the relationship between state and fed, which I guess is what this amendment is largely doing.
This whole sex discrimination thing is largely bullshit in my opinion. Like so many things in both our countries, what is really needed is education and a change in attitudes.
I cannot believe how confrontational men and women often seem to be in the US (and many others for that matter). If a man hates women purely because they are female, how is telling him he mustn’t think like that going to change anything? Equally, forcing him to pretend to treat them fairly isn’t going to improve the situation much either, is it?
What it really needs in all this area of discrimination is for people to stop behaving like childish bigoted assholes and that includes men, women, whites, blacks, Christians, Jews, Moslems, atheists and all the rest. people are people and others like them as individuals, or they don’t. Nothing will change that and only learning to behave like a responsible adult will significantly reduce the unreasonable bigotry.
However, all that said, there ARE national traits and I can’t help the fact that, in spite of the truth that I tend to adore women, PURELY as a GENERALITY I find American women to be loud, abrasive, confrontational and often scarily insecure (those I don’t know and only meet or view casually) and I don’t see how any amount of legislation or constitutional amendments will change that – THAT is down to my personal opinion (experience) and differences in culture.
Good characterization…..but if asked I never said that (LOL)……..my general point was that a SCOTUS judge should not be making those types of comments unless it is in reference to a ruling……it appears that he does not want to hear all the positions and that his mind is made up already…he is suppose to be a neutral referee……
In all that above, I forgot to say that I agree with you entirely that this jerk in such a position as he holds should keep his big f*cking mouth shut on such a subject!
Well crap…I should learn to read ahead……LOL
Once again a SCOTUS judge is playing politics…….
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is scheduled to speak today in a closed-door meeting with the Tea Party Caucus — an informal group of conservative lawmakers, CNN reports.
It is time for an investigation into the doings of the justices…..if they want to play politics let them run for office…..time for them to focus on law and not their personal likes or dislikes…..that is what they are there for…..justice, not politics…..