Continued Conservative SCJ Assault on WomenFollow

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.

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.

lulz

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.

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

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.



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?

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.

No, that's why I can understand what he was saying.

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.

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

I see you're incapable of comprehending stuff written in threads, not just stuff written in interviews. Huh. Interesting.

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.

Whereas you just don't understand the Constitution. Understood.

I don't think you understand that Moe wasn't really agreeing with you.


Edited, Jan 5th 2011 7:52pm by Jophiel

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.



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.



You're the one making insane word and phrase associations, why is it wrong to point out that you're getting it wrong?

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.



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.



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

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?

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?