General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf we lose 2014...women might as well kiss their status as human beings goodbye.
It really is that simple. If we win, we must demand impeachment of the 5 members of the SCOTUS that want nothing more than to remove our rights. We are in a Constitutional Crisis folks. I daresay it is the worst one of this generation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html
>>>>snip
"In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."
Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.
Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)functionality of SCOTUS, as well as a discussion on term limits. How, that will come about I have no idea, but IMO the current SCOTUS has veered far off track and has become a political arm, rather than a Justice arm.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)They have jumped the shark...and I hate that term but it fits.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)So save your face palm...
Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #4)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)You are obviously male and if you don't understand this...well, this doesn't concern ya. Crawl back to where you oozed from.
Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #8)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)fuck the dumb.
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Women's rights will be a central issue in 2014, as well as 2016.
Those who don't feel that way need a moment of introspection before getting in line or getting out of the way.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I don't think we will lose, but even if we do, we're right and will continue to fight.:Gr:
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)hyperbolic?
What happened to this place....
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Those are the images that come to my mind when I hear "losing status as human beings" anyway.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)when we had to have our husband's permission to do anything....barefoot and pregnant, yada yada yada.
Not so long ago women were the property of their fathers and then their husbands. In my obvious limited world view that is losing my status as a human being.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Like I said, it makes me think of some kind of nightmare fascism scenario, where people are doing slave labor in camps, literally behind barbed wire, and so on.
Skittles
(153,148 posts)people can be treated as less than human without being in slave camps
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Skittles
(153,148 posts)than a woman's rights - that is VERY ominous - very ominous INDEED
quinnox
(20,600 posts)done here
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)the implications of this are endless. There are 5 uteruses in my house and I will go down fighting for every one of them.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)However, we don't so it is basically a moot point. Right now I have 5 SCOTUS justices staking claim on MY uterus and it is pissing me off.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)implemented.
You lose NOTHING by this being there. Nothing. Right now, I am trying to protect my daughters and granddaughters from REAL harm, not imagined harm. And simply put, right now I don't give a shit that this "unequal protection" exists for you in this particular instance. There is no harm attached to it. If you don't like it, lace those bad boy boots up and work to have it removed. Since women obviously voluntarily sign up to serve, it is a non-issue.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Guys who don't sign up for involuntary conscription are ineligible to apply for FAFSA.
So your capacity for giving a shit about equal protection depends on who is holding the unsanitary end of the stick?
"Equality" as used here is a head fake, it actually means "more for me".
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)Don't sit back and whine about how men are discriminated against. Do something about it. It isn't like men don't have a political voice....
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)So long as we all understand the laws that would be invalidated by it.
Skittles
(153,148 posts)Orrex
(63,203 posts)What took you so long?
Skittles
(153,148 posts)absolutely PITIFUL
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)OP is completely ignoring the fact that no matter what happens in House and Senate in 2014, Dems most certainly will keep the WH and veto-pen for at least 2 more years. Plus, not a chance in hell of impeaching a SCOTUS Justice.
Orrex
(63,203 posts)The won't be alone. If a Repub takes the Whitehouse and gets to appoint a few more to the SCOTUS, we can write off the nation as a whole, aside from a handful of one percenters.
Interesting times.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Women. Check!
GLBT. Check!
Immigrants. Check!
Latinos. Check!
African Americans. Check!
Who's left?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)US law and policy is rife with examples.
- why does the ACA guarantee contraception, STD testing, HIV counseling and IPV counseling to women but not men?
- why does the draft registration only include men (and only young ones at that)?
- why is there an office of women's health and a white house office for women and girls but nothing analagous for men?
- VAWA and the WIC program.
Set aside for the moment whether you think these inequalities are justified, do these not represent examples of "unequal protection under the law"?
In this case Scalia's view on the matter is demonstrably accurate. These are all examples of "laws that discriminate."
Personally, I'd be strongly in favor of passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, but it's apparent that perceived incursions into women's issues will be the only effective catalyst.
dilby
(2,273 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)maryellen99
(3,788 posts)get the red out
(13,461 posts)Terrifying.
samsingh
(17,595 posts)Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Enrique
(27,461 posts)nor that any attempt will be made to do that.
It's hard to imagine that the OP or anyone giving it a thumbsup could believe such a thing might happen. What would be the basis for it?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)No doubt about it.