It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, Says Women Do NOT Have Constitutional Protection!!

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


What to do? start reading and thinking rationally.

The article says it does not guarantee protection based off sex or sexual preference.
Last time I checked, male was a "sex" too. And Gay men were people too!

You say men covertly act mysoganist here, and yet and you display a profound drive for feminism here and in this story.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
male/female, black/white/yellow/ brown.....that is all so 18th, 20th century anyways....
and there ARE laws protecting people in these areas...
so, well, I've started a list of possible new groups that they may want to discriminate against....thinking about all those groups who they have been scapegoating and such...
and well...
smokers....
people who are deeply in debt....
people who are unemployed...
people who are fat...
mc donald's lovers...
bankers, but highly unlikely, since they are the ones running the show..
single mothers....
people on welfare....

and well, if I have forgotten someone, well...feel free to add them...

I've seen many posts here on ats that HAVE indicated that there is some support for these groups to be discriminated against, and there is some discrimination going on now even. no, they can't take away you due process of the law, although, when it comes to foreclosures, it pretty close to it...
no, they can't take away your right to liberty, but even that is going on some..
no, they can't take your life, but they seem to be able to take the food from one hungry child to give it to another, through their taxation system...
no, they can't take away your quest for happiness, but they sure can make it alot harder to reach that goal!!!
no, they can't take your property, but well...what I said about the foreclosures...
can they force you to relocate to another area of the country if the employment outlook is better there?


but, can they deny you a job, because you are in one of these groups, ya, and they do..
deny you housing....ya, and they do...
tell you to report to pick litter off the street if you want that welfare check...ya, guess they can...maybe they are.
and well, I am running out of idea....
but, I'd be looking in these areas for attempts to remove the rights and liberties from certain select groups, that are not related to the color of one's skin, or gender, or sex, or whatever else is clearly defined under our current laws....
because, I got a feeling it's a wide open area.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I saw nowhere in Judge Scalia's opinion that he even mentioned women, or men for that matter.

From his words, that article could have also been rewritten to read: Men have no Constitutional protection against discrimination!

How is it that his words were twisted to say that "Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination?"

He simply provided his opinin on what is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and that is the job of a Supreme Court Justice. It is not their job to appease those that may feel they don't have equal protection, or interpret the the intent of anything in the Constitution or any Amendments to be anything other than what was written.

Andf, the author of the article was a woman.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I don't understand why he would say such a thing if he did not mean thats how he would judge a case if it came across his desk. ??

I admit I am not the brightest bulb when it comes to the particulars of the law, but he is saying women are not protected under the constitution. So, is he saying if I were fired from my job for being a female, that I cannot fight this under the constitution?
Is he saying it is legal to discriminate against me on the basis of my gender? And is he saying he would not entertain cases of female discrimination? Is he saying we need a law to protect women?


There are federal laws that say that a person can not be discriminated against based on race, sex, creed, or color. What Scalia is saying is, those laws are fine. However, the constitution it self does not pass any protections directly to women.

He says it is fine to make a law protecting the rights of women. Those laws are not unconstitutional, that is what your legislature and ballot box are for. We allready have those laws in place and they are enforced by multiple agencys including the Equal Employement Opportunity Commission.

You are blowing this completely out of shape.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Hotbakedtater

It seems to me as i look over on ATS that most of your posts are about women being discriminated against or brought down in the workplace..

You need to relies that woman have equal rights to men and they fought Hard for these rights.. They dont need special rights there already have them and for you to keep posting stuff about how they dont have rights or there being discriminated on Only leads me to believe that some thing wronged you in this life and on a personal level you prob need to deal with it ..


The 14 amendment Clearly 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.


We all have the same rights and its women in the PAST that fought for these rights and have kept these rights strong .. so tell me What special rights are you trying to Fight hard for now?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


In my opinion the constitution encompasses all facets of equality when it states, " inalienable rights" ....... if someone's choice doesnt infringe on someone else's "inalienable rights" then it should be ok and protected by the constitution. Legislation is the easiest way to corrupt and pervert the system to the benefit of "elitists". See. NAU. for more proof.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mark-in-dallas
 




From his words, that article could have also been rewritten to read: Men have no Constitutional protection against discrimination!


I was going to say something similar. And, I think the way things work now is - all people can and will be discriminated against, for 950 million reasons, including simply existing. I think this is called The Patriot Act


However, if I actually don't have any rights - I'll assume I'm above the law now - kinda like some sort of Diplomatic Immunity.

WOO HOO!!!
CRIME SPREE!!!

Oooh! I'm gonna go buy a purple gun with sparkly things on it! Awesome!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Vash
 


If anything, women enjoy more protection and freedom under the law.

we all know how biased/lenient the courts are on women.

this has got to be one of the most emotional and un-well-thoughtout posts ive seen on ATS



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
What I see from reading that is not really an attack on women's rights, but instead a rationalization or an attempt to make current unconstitutional legislature being passed... well, seem that it's all OK.

I don't think anyone is insane these days to tackle, or bring back the fight for rights of the women or that of the African Americans, for example, that would be idiotic. What he is trying to say, though, is that this Constitution that we all keep bringing up is not the end-all, be-all document that we all think it is. If our current society thinks a change needs to be made, well then we just pass a legislature that enacts a new law - times change, right?

If the current society has a problem with immigrants, well, then we just pass a new legislature making it illegal. Constitution? No worries, not that important.


If I'm getting what Scalia is saying correctly, then I'm much more concerned and not just focused on woman's rights (which are here to stay, don't worry).

Khar



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Vash
 


I think you are spot on! I have noticed, ( research hotbaked's posting history ) that she is one of those whom believe can sell the public on her beliefs/views of " womens treatment". Which further suggest shes one of those feminist whack jobs.

Something did in fact wrong her, and now she's trying to take it out on society.


And from personal experience, the judicial systems in our country are so biased in favor of women, its pathetic!


edit on 5-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar

I am still stuck on the why did he say it???

He was asked a direct question about how the 14th Amendment applied to women's rights, by a magazine devoted to legal issues.


if descrimination isn't unconstitutional, it is still very much illegal, unless they attempt to change the laws, and make it legal again, I think the the women (and men) are safe, at least for now.

just watch, and be ready, in case they do decide to change those laws.....

Exactly right! That's why everyone should be keeping up with the political scene.


If we are a country that is centered on equality, then we all should be able to equally enjoy all the rights granted!

Again, fully agreed! The question is what rights do we have?

The Constitution lists several rights that laws cannot take away... freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to be secure in one's property/effects, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom to vote, etc., etc., etc. But now we have people demanding a right to health care, a right to marry, a right to food, a right to government assistance, etc. But many of these so-called 'rights' inherently infringe on the rights of others guaranteed in the Constitution. No one can have health care unless someone provides it, and if it is a right, then the provider cannot charge for their services. The provider loses the right to be compensated for their labor.

On topic, women do have one right that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.... the right to vote! That right is the most sacred of all IMO, because it means they have as much ability to change the way the government works and the laws they live under as anyone else.

In an informed society, that one right is all anyone needs. It takes care of the rest.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


And thats where the knowledge of Unconstitutional social programs comes in. If you're an informed citizen, and you take the time to educate yourself about social programs and the constitutionality of them, you would learn that most programs are not only unconstitutional, but a burden on the tax payer as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
you display a profound drive for feminism here and in this story.


...i disagree... faux-feminism and opportunistic is more apt, neither of which are necessarily bad or good... she knows which topics, twists and buzz words attract a higher post count and thats really all there is to it...

...re: scalia's opinion - its already been stated numerous times on this thread that those who are getting all hot and bothered by it didnt understand what they read...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I do see healthcare as a right though...
supported by the amount of taxpayer's dollars that have been funneled into the system for the past half a century. funding for research, funding for hospitals, funding for training, funding for healthcare for the poor, for the kids, for the elderly, for the disabled.....
if it wasn't for the taxpayer's money our healthcare would only be a shadow of what it is. and we all pay those taxes, go to a resturuant and buy yourself a meal, and you will paid a tax more than likely been increase a few times over the past few years with the justification that they needed it to fund medicare/medicaid...
if you are paying sales tax, more than likely, you are paying a tax that has increased to help fund the healthcare system...

you are telling me I don't have a right to this healthcare that my taxdollars has helped build, and populate with patients....
then I am telling you....
quit taking my money to use it to build this hellish system and populate it with patients!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar

you are telling me I don't have a right to this healthcare that my taxdollars has helped build, and populate with patients....
then I am telling you....
quit taking my money to use it to build this hellish system and populate it with patients!

That's exactly what I am telling you... on both counts!

An example: I have the right to free speech. That means I can state my opinion on any issue, be that opinion religious, political, or social. No one has the legal ability to tell me I cannot; they can only disagree. I do not have the right to publish what I say in someone else's newspaper, magazine, or even on someone else's website. I have the right to speak, not the right to be heard. And it costs me nothing to speak... no one has to provide me with a service that allows me to exercise that right.

I do not have the right to walk up to a doctor and demand they treat a condition. The doctor has rights too, and one of those rights is liberty. If I can demand they perform a service for me, regardless of whether or not I pay for that service, then the doctor is my slave. I cannot even demand they sell me health care services! There is a maximum amount of patients any one man, even a doctor, can adequately treat, and if that doctor is already treating this maximum number of patients, then I would be denying the 'right' of healthcare to others by exercising mine.

No one can have a right to the property or services of another.

In contrast, if I say I am against abortion, it dies not diiminish the right of someone else to say they support abortion. If I say I am against firearms registration, it does not diminish someone else's right to say they are for firearms registration. I can freely exercise my right of free speech without diminishing others' rights to the same.

Now, if you say you have purchased healthcare via taxes paid, that is another completely different argument. If you purchase something and it is not rendered, your rights have not been violated; the contract has. You just switched form civil rights to contract law. In order for that purchase to be valid, you have to have paid for a specific product or service. Nowhere in the tax code is it stated anywhere that your taxes were in order to provide healthcare should you need it. That's called insurance and is sold by insurance companies, not the government at this time.

You pay taxes, I pay taxes, we all pay taxes in order to maintain the functions of the governments. One such function is to provide infrastructure which we should all have access to since we all pay for it... libraries, roads, parks, police services, fire services, rescue services, etc. Yet, recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that no one has a legal claim to guaranteed police protection or even Social Security (which has its own tax structure specifically to pay for that program!). So already we have instances of fraud (contractual violations) by the government. Now some people seem adamant that they should have health care guaranteed by the same body that has already reneged on the services above, even though they were paid for.

Even the new 'healthcare' bill signed by Obama does not guarantee health care... it just requires you to pay for health insurance. It does not provide you with health insurance; it requires, under penalty of law, that you buy it with money you earned.

So much for believing in the right of healthcare, eh?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

I do see healthcare as a right though...



Honestly - the only thing I see as a "right" from our government is Law Enforcement (includes: personal and property protection).

I kind of like sewers and plague type prevention too. But that's a bonus.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's just one sexist, homophobic SC judge, not the entire Supreme Court. And Scalia an idiot if he thinks the 14th Amendment doesn't protect women.


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.



I don't think you understand the argument. That passage states that the State cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. It does not state that all people must be treated fairly in terms of wages. It states what the government cannot do - not what the people of the country must do. That is his point - is it legal for an employer to discriminate against women - the 14th doesn't mention that.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

you are telling me I don't have a right to this healthcare that my taxdollars has helped build, and populate with patients....then I am telling you....quit taking my money to use it to build this hellish system and populate it with patients!


What tax money? We're running a deficit and a 14 or 15 trillion (who's can keep up) debt. Its fiscal irresponsibility.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's just one sexist, homophobic SC judge, not the entire Supreme Court. And Scalia an idiot if he thinks the 14th Amendment doesn't protect women.

Sadly - - the ERA amendment has never been past. And - two of the Supreme Court judges follow Scalia's lead. There should be a way to FIRE him for this type behavior. This is not the first time he has made public statements similar to this.


For what exactly? Stating the truth - the 14th protects all people from the state/government - it doesn't say anything about personal/employer discrimination based on anything (gender, height, sexual orientation). His point is valid - there is no protection from the 14th for any of that. Would you make it an offense to tell the truth?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yet, recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that no one has a legal claim to guaranteed police protection . . .


Now that is surprising.

I was thinking if I started a government - what would be the #1 basic need. My thought was Order. Of course - I was thinking Order to protect the government - - not the people.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join