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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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

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.


Isn't that what we have? A government for the government, by the people, to serve the government? I'm not protected anywhere but its illegal to have a firearm in any building declared a 'government' facility which is staffed and protected by tax funded police.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

edit on 1/6/2011 by ararisq because: Wrong thread.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
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?


I first heard this in a 30 minute discussion on a radio show.

They said he made these statements in an interview. They did not say it was a written interview.

Their biggest complaint was he makes these statements independent of the other judges. Apparently - it is not the only time.

The ERA comment was specific to the poster.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by Annee

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

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.


Isn't that what we have? A government for the government, by the people, to serve the government? I'm not protected anywhere but its illegal to have a firearm in any building declared a 'government' facility which is staffed and protected by tax funded police.


I don't want to derail the thread too much. It was just a personal thought.

I'm not sure what kind of government we have currently. It seems more Corporate Fascist to me - - then anything else.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I'm not sure what kind of government we have currently. It seems more Corporate Fascist to me - - then anything else.


It isn't fascist or a banking oligarchy by structure but it might be a banking oligarchy in practice. You have an Obama administration that has staffed and continues to staff the highest levels of his administration with executives from Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. Looking back - I don't know where he formed these relationships as a lawyer and community organizer in Chicago and most of these guys are hold overs from the Bush administration. It seems to me that Bush/Obama are polarizing lightning-rod figure heads and a couple of banks are running this country. Its not as much corporate as it is banker if there is a difference - they turned the intent behind corporations on its head in order to control the people. I just don't like the idea that we'd be better off without independent corporations and businesses and better off with a state run economy - then its 100% under their control. I would imagine its at least somewhat challenging right now - we are after all still able to communicate these thoughts.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

It isn't fascist or a banking oligarchy by structure but it might be a banking oligarchy in practice. You have an Obama administration that has staffed and continues to staff the highest levels of his administration with executives from Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. Looking back - I don't know where he formed these relationships as a lawyer and community organizer in Chicago and most of these guys are hold overs from the Bush administration. It seems to me that Bush/Obama are polarizing lightning-rod figure heads and a couple of banks are running this country. Its not as much corporate as it is banker if there is a difference - they turned the intent behind corporations on its head in order to control the people. I just don't like the idea that we'd be better off without independent corporations and businesses and better off with a state run economy - then its 100% under their control. I would imagine its at least somewhat challenging right now - we are after all still able to communicate these thoughts.


That seems reasonable. The presidency is not One person. He is a figure head for people to focus on. A "don't look behind the curtain" front man. I think behind the scenes the real power/control and political direction for this country has already been decided - - that there is no division. The voice of the people doesn't seem to have much power anymore (if it ever really did).

I'm not trying to be all conspiratorial. It just seems more apparent in that direction from a logical observation.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

Now that is surprising.

Well, I prefer the words 'pathetic', 'immoral', 'fraudulent'... but yeah, I suppose 'surprising' can fit too.


That is what continually amazes me about people demanding more 'rights'... not only are the things they are demanding typically more of an entitlement (something you receive as a benefit of situation or status rather than by virtue of payment), but the true rights are being forgotten!

I'm with you on the police, Annee... police protection falls easily under the stated purposes of 'promote the general welfare', 'establish justice', 'and 'ensure domestic tranquility' in the Preamble. Yet, I have never seen the Federal Government concern itself with violent crime. That is left to the States. Healthcare is not a stated purpose anywhere in the Constitution, therefore the responsibility of the States, but it is addressed on a Federal level?

It's akin to hiring plumber to fix a water leak, and him mowing the grass instead and still demanding payment.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   


Here you go, folks. The Supreme Court says so. Yet we still have people who say we do not need feminists, or people fighting for only women's rights.


The Supreme Court did not say this. A Judge residing upon the bench, speaking outside his capacity has made his view upon the 14th Amendment known.


Here we have Scalia saying women are not protected under our constitution. On this board we have posters disguising misogyny under the bleat,

Women already have equal rights, they don't need special rights.


All People, regardless of sex have equal rights of protection under the Law regardless of the 14th Amendment. I believe his main point was that this is not an issue that the Constitution should cover. Government and Law must remain neutral upon the fact, but he is stating that the Constitution cannot prohibit it in the social context of the lives of Americans. Example being I might have a line of thinking that my business will only engage with black males in their 30s. I am discriminating in my Right to engage in private contracts with another consenting individual. This is what he is talking about, not that the whole of the Constitution doesn't apply to females.

The major problem, which I also believe he is trying to discuss is that the cultural aspects of society and individuals has made a major shift from when the Constitution was written and even when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

The unintended consequences of the 14th Amendment was that the cultural attitude of the day was shifting still and this was the beginning of special circumstances for certain races, sexes, etc.

Hell, the Federal Government gives special consideration for contracts if you are 'minority' and 'female'. How is that not special Rights or special favors?



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

ya know, now that you mention this:

Hell, the Federal Government gives special consideration for contracts if you are 'minority' and 'female'. How is that not special Rights or special favors?
that reminds me of all the years of the 'equality movement' through the 60s-70s and 80s ... how is it that resulting from the 'equality movement' we still have any minority groups? that question has boggled my brain for many a year.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR FEMALES link


WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

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.


Here you go, folks. The Supreme Court says so. Yet we still have people who say we do not need feminists, or people fighting for only women's rights.

Oh we don't?

Yes, now more than ever, us Female Fighters need to stay vigilant, and ever protective of our rights.

Here we have Scalia saying women are not protected under our constitution. On this board we have posters disguising misogyny under the bleat,

Women already have equal rights, they don't need special rights.

There blows that excuse out the water.





I just don't know what to do about this situation, but maybe some discussion on the topic will start some ideas flowing.


Email bomb Scalia's inbox.

www.supremecourt.gov...



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


worse yet....
the minorities have become the majorities...do believe women were alway more in numbers than white males....
and, well, with the southern border seeping immigrants like water through a filter, I wouldn't be surprised if the white male is the minority.
maybe minority isn't the right word, maybe it should be more like "historically, culturally, oppressed?, or something.
In all honesty, I don 't think that the law can do much when it comes to the bias and prejudice that people have. They can write laws against acting on that bias, they can write laws that give the oppressed extra perks to offset the resutls of those prejudices. but, they can't force people to think a different way, and people's beliefs will always influence how they act. The minorities would do better to go the extra mile or ten miles and prove that those prejudices are wrong than to whine to the gov't about them....because, for every action, there is a reaction. the reactions the gov't produces are usuallly a mixture of good and not so good....and the gov't seems not to have any foresight when it comes to predicting what those reactions will be.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join