Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on WomenFollow

#52 Jan 05 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
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.


Pretty sure he was talking about the actual slavery and human trafficking that still exists in the U.S.. Though some people do abuse safety nets, I'd hardly consider it slavery that the rare person does when it mostly goes to people who are earnestly trying to get on their feet. Particularly considering that capitalism in a consumerist economy is the reason people need safety nets in the first place.
#53 Jan 05 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
So what you mean is that you disagree with Scalia's opinion, because he is arguing intent, not what is actually says?


This is where I think you and Joph go off a bit. We're disagreeing on what the actual text says. Scalia is not interpreting anything at all. He's not guessing at intent (even though he's asked to do this). He very specifically states that the constitution, and specifically the 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination. And he's right.


It's just strange that this is being portrayed as though it's interpretation of intent, when it's the rest of you who are doing this. And yes, it is about semantics. It's funny how consistently people have to change my own words when responding to me in order to make a counter point. Please stop doing that. I say exactly what I mean to say with exactly the words I use. Don't change them and then argue against the changed words.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jan 05 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
An example:

Kachi wrote:
Quote:
The 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination. It merely requires that all people receive equal protection of the law.


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?


Do you see how the two phrases you compared are not even remotely the same as the two I used?

"Equal protection of the law" is not even close to "equal treatment".

"prohibit discrimination" is not the same as "prohibit discriminatory treatment". Although that ones at least somewhat close.

Quote:
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?


We're talking about what the words in a constitutional amendment mean. Somewhat by definition, we are "mincing some kind of semantic argument". Go back and read what Scalia said. He's making the same point. One set of words does not mean another. It's what Joph keeps missing. No matter how many times I explain that the issue is about whether equal protection of the law means that the law cannot discriminate, he keeps trying to turn it into some kind of exception case specific to gender issues.


It's not. He was asked a question specific to sex, so he answered within that context. Nowhere in his response does he state that the position only applies to discrimination based on sex.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 3:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jan 05 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Please stop doing that. I say exactly what I mean to say with exactly the words I use.

That's funny, so did Scalia and so did the interviewer and yet here's you trying to spin them and insist that they said something different that no one can see but you.
Quote:
Don't change them and then argue against the changed words.

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Jan 05 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Please stop doing that. I say exactly what I mean to say with exactly the words I use.

That's funny, so did Scalia and so did the interviewer and yet here's you trying to spin them and insist that they said something different that no one can see but you.


Scalia said that the 14th amendment prohibited discrimination on the basis of every single thing in the world except sex? Funny. I didn't see that, yet your entire argument (that he's singling out women) depends on that interpretation of his words.

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where Scalia said that said discrimination was not prohibited "because women aren't considered part of 'all people'". Can you do that for me Joph?


Or will you now admit that you are going a bit past the actual words that were said?

Quote:
Quote:
Don't change them and then argue against the changed words.

lulz


Not sure why you're laughing. It's exactly what you have done.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Jan 05 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Nowhere in his response does he state that the position only applies to discrimination based on sex.

Hahaha... really? No sh*t. What he's saying is that the "equal protection" clause was only intended to apply to race. Hence his saying "Nobody ever voted for that".

Wow, you need to learn to read. I know you've been trying to get traction with that line this whole thread but no one is having any problems with this except you.
Quote:
And I'm still waiting for you to show me where Scalia said that said discrimination was not prohibited "because women aren't considered part of 'all people'". Can you do that for me Joph?

So you didn't understand hyperbole in high school English? I know you tried to wave off your moronic remark about it before but I was giving you some benefit of the doubt. Well, maybe they'll bring it up in your remedial reading comprehension class. Good luck!

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 5:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jan 05 2011 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Scalia said that the 14th amendment prohibited discrimination on the basis of every single thing in the world except sex?

No, why... are you retarded?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Jan 05 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nowhere in his response does he state that the position only applies to discrimination based on sex.

Hahaha... really? No sh*t. What he's saying is that the "equal protection" clause was only intended to apply to race.


Nope. He didn't say that either. Look at what he actually said. Sheesh. It's like I'm talking to a 4 year old or something. Stop reading into his words.

Quote:
Hence his saying "Nobody ever voted for that".


And again you don't get it. He was asked about sexual discrimination, so he answered that question.


If someone asks me if the first amendment protects the right to hit someone over the head with a hammer as an expression of free speech, I would say that it doesn't say that. That does not mean that I'm saying that *only* hitting someone over the head with a hammer isn't protected speech.

But that's what you are arguing here. Can you see what I'm talking about? Scalia is saying that the 14th amendment only says what it says and nothing else. It doesn't say the government can't discriminate on the basis of sex. It also doesn't say that they can't discriminate on the basis of handedness, or hair color, or age, or foot size, or anything else.


It's not an "assault on women". Get it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Jan 05 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Scalia said that the 14th amendment prohibited discrimination on the basis of every single thing in the world except sex?

No, why... are you retarded?


Are you? In order for his statement to be an "assault on women", he would have to be saying exactly that. If you agree with me that he *didn't* say that, then his statement isn't an assault on women, and thus the OP's position is wrong (as I've been saying all along).

Get it yet? Maybe if I say this enough times, it'll sink in? Sheesh!


He is not singling out women when he says that the 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination

He is not singling out women when he says that the 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination

He is not singling out women when he says that the 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination



Get it?

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 4:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Jan 05 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Scalia is saying that the 14th amendment only says what it says and nothing else.

That is exactly, 100% wrong. It's hilarious how bad you are at this. Scalia is saying that, despite the text reading that equal protection shall not be denied to "any person", that use of it in gender cases is wrong because that was not the intent of the amendment. Honestly, there's no easier or clearer way to explain it so if you're still lost, I guess you'll remain lost and keep insisting that everyone else is wrong and we'll just laugh at you or, more likely, grow bored of watching you be wrong and move along to other things.
Quote:
Are you?

No, that's why I can understand what he was saying.
Quote:
In order for his statement to be an "assault on women"...

I never called it that. I do recognize though that he's saying that gender shouldn't be covered by the 14th Amendment. Whether or not someone else wants to call it whatever is between you and them.
Quote:
He is not singling out women when he says that the 14th amendment does not prohibit discrimination

While true, this doesn't touch on a single point I've made about Scalia or, for that matter, you.

Try reading next time.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 7:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Jan 05 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The rulings didn't create the law upon which the changes were based.

Didn't claim they did. I said that they were important towards establishing equal rights. Especially in the face of chucklenuts like Scalia who think women don't count as "any person" under the equal rights clause.


That was the statement by you which sparked the entire debate between you and I. When you say something like this in a thread titled "Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on Women", I'm supposed to assume that you *dont* agree with the OP's assessment?

You're right Joph. I'm not a mind reader capable of detecting that when you say something in seeming complete support with the core assertion of the thread you are posting in, you don't really mean it. You're just randomly musing about something unrelated I suppose? Lol...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Jan 05 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you honestly think he doesn't believe that women count as "any person"? Don't you ever stop to examine how absurd your own claims are?
Jophiel wrote:
I see you never came across "hyperbole" in English class. Pity, that. Anyway, he stated that the Congress that passed the amendment never intended it to provide protections against discrimination due to gender. Did you just fail to read the OP or something? There isn't much more context to it, either. It was an interview.

I see you're incapable of comprehending stuff written in threads, not just stuff written in interviews. Huh. Interesting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Jan 05 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Do you see how the two phrases you compared are not even remotely the same as the two I used?

"Equal protection of the law" is not even close to "equal treatment".

"prohibit discrimination" is not the same as "prohibit discriminatory treatment". Although that ones at least somewhat close.


When you're a Supreme Court Justice, and you're talking about THE LAW, yes, it's exactly the same thing. If equal protection of the law is required, then discrimination in law is prohibited.

God, you really are trying to mince a semantic argument. I had forgotten how low you're willing to sink.
#65 Jan 05 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
God, you really are trying to mince a semantic argument. I had forgotten how low you're willing to sink.

He's currently trying to salvage a shred of dignity by arguing that everyone said the 14th Amendment only allows discrimination by gender.

Which is pretty funny on multiple levels but mainly on the level that he thinks he's salvaging anything by choosing that point to argue.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Jan 05 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Scalia is saying that the 14th amendment only says what it says and nothing else.

That is exactly, 100% wrong. It's hilarious how bad you are at this. Scalia is saying that, despite the text reading that equal protection shall not be denied to "any person", that use of it in gender cases is wrong because that was not the intent of the amendment.


The use of it in any case does not specifically prohibit discrimination. That's what you keep getting wrong. I've only explained this to you like 5 times now. And there's a century of court cases showing that this is true. If it were not true we would not have needed to bother going through that whole civil rights movement thing.


Look. Let's make this simple. You simply do not understand the conservative viewpoint when it comes to things like the Constitution, rights, equality, principles of liberty, etc. You simply view these things through a completely different lens. Can you at least accept that maybe other conservatives understand what Scalia is saying better than you do? Hell, Moe got it right in one, but you missed what he was saying. He pointed out (correctly) that by the interpretation of the 14th amendment you seem to insist on clinging to all affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional, as well as all forms of income assistance, the very concept of universal health care, and frankly pretty much the entire liberal social agenda.

We don't rule those things automatically unconstitutional though, do we? And before we get into an argument about the details of what should or shouldn't be, the point I'm making is that Moe "got it". I "got it". We both got that this is about whether or not the 14th amendment makes any and all forms of discrimination unconstitutional and conclude that it must not since we continue to engage in many many forms of discrimination all the time. We both "got" that this is what Scalia was referring to.

You could not see past the fact that the question was framed to be about women to see the larger issue. His answer wasn't about women. That just happened to be the specific question asked.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Jan 05 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Look. Let's make this simple. You simply do not understand the conservative viewpoint when it comes to things like the Constitution

Whereas you just don't understand the Constitution. Understood.
Quote:
Hell, Moe got it right in one, but you missed what he was saying.

I don't think you understand that Moe wasn't really agreeing with you.
Jophiel wrote:
Honestly, there's no easier or clearer way to explain it so if you're still lost, I guess you'll remain lost and keep insisting that everyone else is wrong and we'll just laugh at you or, more likely, grow bored of watching you be wrong and move along to other things.


Edited, Jan 5th 2011 7:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Jan 05 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
He pointed out (correctly) that by the interpretation of the 14th amendment you seem to insist on clinging to ... the very concept of universal health care [would be unconstitutional]
Mind explaining the line of reasoning behind that, because I'm not seeing it?

Specifically, I can understand stating that the specific implementation as desired would be, but the concept itself does not seem to violate "equal protection under the law" or any similarly-formed phrase.

(If your argument involves some form of stating that it violates equality or whatever for the insurance corporations, um, corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. A lack of a clear distinction between "legal entities" and "people" is part of the current problem with the political and legal system today.)
#69 Jan 05 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Do you see how the two phrases you compared are not even remotely the same as the two I used?

"Equal protection of the law" is not even close to "equal treatment".

"prohibit discrimination" is not the same as "prohibit discriminatory treatment". Although that ones at least somewhat close.


When you're a Supreme Court Justice, and you're talking about THE LAW, yes, it's exactly the same thing.


No, it's not. In fact the more schooled you are in law, the more important minor syntactical differences are. You can bet a Supreme Court Justice is very very aware of the difference between those statements and will usually work very hard to use exactly the right language in order to ensure that people like you *don't* run around behind them misinterpreting what they say.

Sadly, since most of the rest of the population doesn't understand, you do it anyway.

Quote:
If equal protection of the law is required, then discrimination in law is prohibited.


Where the hell do you get this? Equal protection of the law means that the laws apply equally to everyone. So if someone steals my property, the punishment is the same for the thief as it would be if he stole equal valued property from you. My life is worth as much as yours. In any area in which the law is "protecting" us, we are to be granted equal protection.

That is *not* the same as saying that the law cannot discriminate, and certainly not that the law must eliminate all private instances of discrimination. Otherwise handicapped parking spaces would be unconstitutional, women only housing would be unconstitutional, affirmative action would be unconstitutional, requiring anyone to qualify for anything would be unconstitutional, unemployment would be unconstitutional, etc.

Virtually the entire contents of federal law would be unconstitutional. We discriminate all the time. How many women were drafted into military service during Viet Nam? Isn't that discrimination? Every public building has separate bathroom facilities for men and women. Isn't that discrimination? Isn't that "separate but equal"? OMG!!! The world isn't as freaking stupidly simplistic as you've been taught. It really isn't about waving a magic word around and using it as a battering ram to attack anything and anyone you don't like.


"Discrimination" doesn't really mean what you think it does. Neither does equal protection of the law. Your problem is you don't actually understand either of the terms being used, but continue to argue a position out of utter ignorance anyway. The only thing sadder is the sheer number of people who, for no reason other than that it fits with some semantic rhetoric they've been taught to agree with, will insist that you are right.

Quote:
God, you really are trying to mince a semantic argument. I had forgotten how low you're willing to sink.


You're the one making insane word and phrase associations, why is it wrong to point out that you're getting it wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Jan 05 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't think I've ever mentioned the 14th Amendment or equal protection when discussing health care. But knowing nothing about my beliefs shouldn't stop Gbaji from engaging in a good screed about how no one understands his principles and values and so we shouldn't remark on them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Jan 05 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He pointed out (correctly) that by the interpretation of the 14th amendment you seem to insist on clinging to ... the very concept of universal health care [would be unconstitutional]
Mind explaining the line of reasoning behind that, because I'm not seeing it?


Because universal health care requires that the government take money from what it's currently doing and choose to put it somewhere else. That requires "discrimination" in that it's choosing where the money should best go. It further requires that the government categorize people based on need, health, ability to pay, etc and distribute the benefits of the care based on those things.

I suspect that many of you don't really understand that "discriminate" doesn't just mean "discriminate in ways that I don't like". The word is not bound to any particular ethics. If you tax wealthy people more, you are discriminating against them. If you provide food to a starving person you are discriminating as well. If you give a tax break for one action, but not another you are discriminating. If you award a contract to one company, but not another you are discriminating.

Government does these things all the time. That's why it's absurd to assume that the equal protection clause says anything at all about not discriminating (on any basis). What it does is place a boundary. That's it.

Quote:
Specifically, I can understand stating that the specific implementation as desired would be, but the concept itself does not seem to violate "equal protection under the law" or any similarly-formed phrase.


It doesn't violate the concept of equal protection of the law. That's the exact point I'm making. It *does* violate the concept of government not discriminating though. Thus, it is wrong to equate equal protection with "government may not discriminate". Which is the point I've been trying to get across the whole time.

Those are *not* the same thing. They have never been the same thing. All Scalia was doing was pointing this out. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment does not prohibit the government from discriminating in the application of its laws. Not in any sort of broad constitutional sense.

Quote:
(If your argument involves some form of stating that it violates equality or whatever for the insurance corporations, um, corporations are not citizens and should not be treated as such. A lack of a clear distinction between "legal entities" and "people" is part of the current problem with the political and legal system today.)


Nope. Completely wrong.


Let me clarify something for you. From a conservative point of view, the problem with universal health care isn't that it's some kind of violation of the equal protection clause, but that it seizes property without sufficient due cause (which is a different issue touched on in several areas of the constitution). Specifically, the requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance or suffer a fine would seem to be onerous intrusion of the government into someone's private life. It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to do with the default state of liberty being that the government doesn't get to tell us what to do with our own property.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 6:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Jan 05 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,568 posts
Quote:
Because universal health care requires that the government take money from what it's currently doing and choose to put it somewhere else. That requires "discrimination" in that it's choosing where the money should best go.


Stopped reading here....
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#73 Jan 05 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I don't think I've ever mentioned the 14th Amendment or equal protection when discussing health care. But knowing nothing about my beliefs shouldn't stop Gbaji from engaging in a good screed about how no one understands his principles and values and so we shouldn't remark on them.



Um... Follow the point:

If the argument that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment protected "all people" from laws which discriminated in any way (including women in this particular case), then it would also protect us from affirmative action, income assistance, having different tax rates and deductibles, and a zillion other things our government does every single day.


If you do not support that interpretation of the 14th amendment when applied to those other cases, then you shouldn't support it in the case being argued in this thread.


I didn't think I was being that obtuse when I made this point. I thought I said quite clearly that if that was the case, then all of these other things would have to be ruled unconstitutional as well. Why are you confused?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jan 05 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Stopped reading here....

You should continue. He tries to relate it to Scalia again and it's pretty funny actually how off he can be while trying to spin a simple answer from Scalia into some tirade about completely different stuff. I was getting bored before but this meltdown is getting interesting its own way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Jan 05 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Because universal health care requires that the government take money from what it's currently doing and choose to put it somewhere else. That requires "discrimination" in that it's choosing where the money should best go.


Stopped reading here....


Lol. Because I used the word "discriminate" to mean something other than "discriminate in a way I don't like"?

Predictable!


Do you know what discriminate means? Not the political rhetoric. The actual word?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Jan 05 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If the argument that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment protected "all people" from laws which discriminated in any way

That's not the argument. At least that was never my argument. That's not even my belief. You shouldn't talk about me when you so obviously do not understand my viewpoint when it comes to things like the Constitution, rights, equality, principles of liberty, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 345 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (345)