Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on WomenFollow

It's not about hyperbole Joph. It's about you (not just you either) missing which words are actually important.




I think the more relevant question is whether "equal protection of the laws" as written in the 14th amendment means the same thing as "equal rights" (with potentially multiple meanings depending on who's saying the phrase), and whether it prohibits "discrimination on the basis of gender", as stated by Scalia. Those are not exactly identical or directly applicable concepts. Government "discriminates" all the time and for a host or reasons and situations. That's not the same as denying someone equal protection though.



What Scalia is saying is that discrimination does not automatically equate to a violation of equal protection. What's shocking is how you could so completely fail to grasp the quite obvious point he was making and instead leap into the most irrational interpretation possible. Well, it's only shocking if one assumed that you were trying to honestly figure out what he was saying as opposed to just jumping to the conclusion that allowed you to paint his statements in the worst light possible.


Your interpretation (hyperbole or not) completely misses the mark. Is that helpful enough for you?

True! :)



He didn't argue that because the question wasn't asked. Why do you suppose we wrote and passed the 15th amendment then? Two years later we felt the need to write a specific amendment guaranteeing that people could not be denied the right to vote on the basis of race. Funny how that happened even though we'd just passed one that covered discrimination on the basis of race!

Think maybe you're missing something here?




He didn't say that was the reason though. You don't get to just invent a reason and stick it to him and then attack him for it. How many times do I have to point this out to you?


If the question had been about discrimination on the basis of race, he'd have given the same answer. Left handedness? Same answer? Age? Same answer. The 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination. It merely requires that all people receive equal protection of the law. The issue is the interpretation of "equal protection". What he's saying is that many people (including you apparently) interpret that in a way that is far far broader than was intended when the amendment was passed.


Way to completely miss the point though.




He didn't give the answer you keep claiming he did though. Don't you see this? You keep wanting to attribute a "why" or "because" to his statement, but it's not there. Doesn't stop you from inventing one though, does it?

I'm sorry. Was there a "because" in his answer that I missed? WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension today?



And you still fail to get the point. Sigh...


It's about the difference between discrimination on the basis of something, and equal protection for all people. A law which guarantees the latter does not automatically prohibit the former. That's what he was saying. Quite clearly, for anyone who isn't wearing blinders.

Oh, I get it. Which is why I don't have to sit here and look at plain quotes and say "No no no! Really, it means this! Honest! Please believe me!"

Here, put very simply...

If you want to desperately spin that to mean that Scalia doesn't think it's wrong to apply 14th Amendment equal protection on the basis of gender (despite its reading of "any person"), have at it. You won't prove much more than what a massive tool you are but at least you'll get some typing practice out of it. Have fun.

The funny thing is that someone could actually make a historical case that Scalia is correct. That the intent of the 14th Amendment, regardless of the text, was to protect blacks and it was not intended to protect women. But that would leave you open to the cold reality that perhaps the Constitution should be studied for intent rather than blind literal drone-worship of the text and you can't reconcile that so you'd rather beg us to believe that Scalia said something different.


Edited, Jan 4th 2011 9:18pm by Jophiel

lmao, are you kidding me? Really? And for further lulz you insult Joph's reading comprehension.

Requiring equal treatment is not the same as prohibiting discriminatory treatment? Are you really trying so desperately to mince some kind of semantic argument out of that, or are you so stupid that you didn't realize just how daft a statement that was?

Oh my god, gbaji. If I ever took you seriously before, you would have completely lost me there.

I admit I'm both largely unaware of gbaji's view of the US Constitution and the interactions of many other conservative views on it, but I have heard among many conservatives the argument of "original intent," which often seems to be the license to interpret intent of the Constitution beyond the literal words (and often in such a way that coincidentally furthers their agenda). I'm not certain it is entirely correct to say that gbaji believes in a literal interpretation over intent.


I've also heard conservatives support very strict readings of the Constitution and treat it largely as infallible and exacting. I have no idea if these are two differing factions within the conservative ideologies or if it is the same group working under a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 2:43am by Allegory

To muddy the waters further, though, I am not a Republican or a "conservative". My thinking on matters has matured over the years and I find myself much more closely aligned with the Libertarian school of thought. That being the case, tossing me in in any sort of exploration of the duality of the "conservative" mindset could be less than effective.

I would go with as written, as that would then obviate any and all affirmative action programs, means testing in social welfare programs, and all of our civil rights legislation.

EDIT: It is important to note that it would also lighten the federal workforce and the spend on the massive, bloated bureaucracies that support the fore mentioned programs.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 9:33am by MoebiusLord

S'true. Those of us who work hard to provide a good life for our families are held as slaves by the government to the care and feeding of the lazy people who take unemployment for 2 years and the "less fortunate" among us.

Locked,

To be fair I havn't had my coffee yet and I really didn't reade Scalia's remark.

Moe,



Nor will it pull that giant d*ldo out of your as*. So I guess we're both f*cked then.

aso?