Case of the wrong door opens at Supreme Court

[HempKat]

If women aren't protected from discrimination by the constitution... what civil rights do they have? I'm not sure I understand your distinction.

That's funny because in the post you made right after the post where I said that, it sounded like you understood perfectly. The point I'm making is that just because something doesn't specifically spell out rights for women does not automatically translate to women don't have rights. I can't read the minds of the people that created the 14th amendment to tell you what exactly they intended to cover with the amendment. Nor can anyone else. All anyone can do is read the 14th amendment and draw their own conclusions. From what I read it didn't seem like Scalia was saying that women don't have rights but rather that as it is currently written it doesn't specifically protect women's rights, in his opinion. What I read seemed to be saying there are other means by which women's rights can and should be protected on a state level, without having to amend the constitution. I also was making the point that any one Supreme Court Judge's opinion is irrelevent in that all 9 judges decide on Supreme Court rulings and the 3 female Supreme Court Judges are not likely to agree with Scalia's view on the matter.

 

[bj368]

kentucky has become an absolute police state. they are trying to pass laws here in kentucky that says if your unemployed that you are not allowed to have internet connected to your house. they do not want you to waste time online when you need to be job hunting.. i read this in a bill last night . i will post the new bill soon. they are set to vote on it soon. . i think some one needs to tell them that you have to have the internet to get a job anymore . thats were to fill out applications.

 

[Greensub]

That's funny because in the post you made right after the post where I said that, it sounded like you understood perfectly.

That's true... I thought I did... and then I went back and read what he actually said, and the discrimination cases having to do with the 14th amendment. It seemed to me that he was saying that in his opinion those cases I posted having to do with woman's civil rights were all decided wrongly in his opinion. Then he went on to clarify by saying that we can pass laws to give those right's to women instead of relying on the 14th amendment. Of course I'm paraphrasing here but I don't think I'm too off the mark.

The point I'm making is that just because something doesn't specifically spell out rights for women does not automatically translate to women don't have rights.

Ok then... so what he's specifically saying is that Woman should have no equal protection under the law as a constitutional right... Or rather that they shouldn't be enjoying those right's right now because he doesn't feel that the 14th amendment should apply to them (as it does now). (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on whether or not laws should be enacted to secure those rights in his opinion.)

I can't read the minds of the people that created the 14th amendment to tell you what exactly they intended to cover with the amendment. Nor can anyone else. All anyone can do is read the 14th amendment and draw their own conclusions.

I guess only "All Men are created equal" then according to Scalia's interpretation & point of view right?... (oh wait that's the preamble isn't it?)

From what I read it didn't seem like Scalia was saying that women don't have rights but rather that as it is currently written it doesn't specifically protect women's rights, in his opinion. What I read seemed to be saying there are other means by which women's rights can and should be protected on a state level, without having to amend the constitution. I also was making the point that any one Supreme Court Judge's opinion is irrelevent in that all 9 judges decide on Supreme Court rulings and the 3 female Supreme Court Judges are not likely to agree with Scalia's view on the matter.

That was a lot better, as far as clarification... So all woman have to protect their civil rights are the right to vote... and a patchwork of state laws protecting their civil rights? I wonder what his political opinion on an equal rights amendment are? I'm sure he'd never say.

What has changed since 1900 when women couldn't go to court in their own name, work or vote. Well the 19th amendment gave them the right to vote. How did they get all these other rights? Or is just that no one is denying them these rights anymore?

I guess I just see equal protection under the law as a major thing... so many civil right's hinge on the equal protection clause.

A week or so ago, he stated that it was his opinion that women had no civil rights whatsoever in the US...

he said no such thing

I guess the truth of what he said is somewhere in between these two statements in my opinion.

Always good talking with you Hempcat.

p.s. I agree the three woman on the court would probably disagree... I wonder if in Scalia's opinion those three have no constitutional right to sit on the supreme court? I don't recall the constitution enumerating that right either... see my earlier post where the court decided that woman couldn't be a lawyer because they felt the 14th amendment didn't apply to women.

 

[Greensub]

kentucky has become an absolute police state. they are trying to pass laws here in kentucky that says if your unemployed that you are not allowed to have internet connected to your house. they do not want you to waste time online when you need to be job hunting.. i read this in a bill last night . i will post the new bill soon. they are set to vote on it soon. . i think some one needs to tell them that you have to have the internet to get a job anymore . thats were to fill out applications.

That's just crazy...

 

[BrainSellz]

kentucky has become an absolute police state. they are trying to pass laws here in kentucky that says if your unemployed that you are not allowed to have internet connected to your house. they do not want you to waste time online when you need to be job hunting.. i read this in a bill last night . i will post the new bill soon. they are set to vote on it soon. . i think some one needs to tell them that you have to have the internet to get a job anymore . thats were to fill out applications.

it must be one of these dinosaur lawmakers that doesnt use internet and probably doesnt know anyone thats had to apply for a job lately as many places will tell you to fill out the online app....actually kentucky might still be on the paper system

 

[Greensub]

In the context of the Constitution and how it states, Scalia has always been brilliant in his opinions on this issue.

I for one am completely against Hooters allowing hairy ass goons and their boyfriends from serving me wings and beer. And I am thankful that the Constitution protects the rights of Hooters to deny employment to any hairy ass goons they wish.
It certainly doesn't protect the rights of the hairy ass goon and his boyfriend... who are livid because they won't hire them to wear the orange hot pants.

LOL... never thought about it that way.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Operation Derailment successful

 

[Greensub]

Ya... your right... sorry.

Here's some quotes from the justices concerning the King Vs Kentucky case.

Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the worry for some on the court.
"One of the points of the Fourth Amendment is to ensure that when people search your home, they have a warrant, and of course there are exceptions to that," she said.
Agreeing with a test proposed by Kentucky prosecutors for when such searches are lawful could mean "essentially eviscerating the warrant requirement in the context of the one place that the Fourth Amendment was most concerned about."

Some justices seemed troubled by the prospect of police wandering halls - "They go to the apartment building and they sniff at every door," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposed - to find cause to search.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried that agreeing with Farley would mean that police could always enter without a warrant if they thought drugs were being used on the other side, because police could always say they feared that the evidence would be destroyed.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the police did nothing wrong. When they knocked on the door, the occupants could have answered and told police that they could not come in without a warrant.
"Everything done was perfectly lawful," Scalia said. "It's unfair to the criminal? Is that the problem? I really don't understand the problem."
Law enforcement, he said, has many constraints, "and the one thing that it has going for it is that criminals are stupid."
But Drake said law-abiding citizens might not know how to act if police pounded on the door at 10 p.m. and demanded entry.
"Under our test, the police act unreasonably when they convey the impression to a reasonable person that entry is imminent and inevitable," she said. The problem, she said, is when a police officer acts as if he has a warrant but does not.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. proposed a different scenario. It's early evening, the officer "knocks quietly on the door and says, 'We're the police, can we talk?' "
"And then there was the smell of marijuana. And then he hears the sounds that do convey to a reasonable police officer that evidence is being destroyed. At that point, can they enter without a warrant?"

I guess we're going to have to wait awhile to find out.

 

[trichrider]

read an article recently that intimated that you have no rights to privacy after arrest!
doesn't that negate the 5th amendment? ime it does.
nuts, this is not your fathers america!

 

[Classy@Home]

reasonable police officer

Oxymoron

When someone is PAID to arrest, their job depends on arrests, the funding for their livelihood hinges on arrests - they are going to pick the easiest targets to arrest, and do/say/act in whatever manner is likely to make those arrests stick.

leos didn't just start kicking the shit outta people once video cameras became common - they have been doing it all along, we can just prove it now.

Bad leos are the rule - not the exception.

 

[Budsmith]

if these little piglets get more power then it's gonna get bad... they already abuse the power they do have and with something like this going in their favor would mean that this could be bad for ALL citizens

 

[HempKat]

kentucky has become an absolute police state. they are trying to pass laws here in kentucky that says if your unemployed that you are not allowed to have internet connected to your house. they do not want you to waste time online when you need to be job hunting.. i read this in a bill last night . i will post the new bill soon. they are set to vote on it soon. . i think some one needs to tell them that you have to have the internet to get a job anymore . thats were to fill out applications.

I guess the powers that be in Kentucky don't realize that job hunting is trending towards being an Internet sort of thing? Hell in my local newspaper they don't take ads for employment anymore, in the help wanted section it just refers you to monster.com which is a popular internet site dedicated to employment opportunities.

 

[HempKat]

That's true... I thought I did... and then I went back and read what he actually said, and the discrimination cases having to do with the 14th amendment. It seemed to me that he was saying that in his opinion those cases I posted having to do with woman's civil rights were all decided wrongly in his opinion. Then he went on to clarify by saying that we can pass laws to give those right's to women instead of relying on the 14th amendment. Of course I'm paraphrasing here but I don't think I'm too off the mark.

Ok then... so what he's specifically saying is that Woman should have no equal protection under the law as a constitutional right... Or rather that they shouldn't be enjoying those right's right now because he doesn't feel that the 14th amendment should apply to them (as it does now). (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on whether or not laws should be enacted to secure those rights in his opinion.)

I guess only "All Men are created equal" then according to Scalia's interpretation & point of view right?... (oh wait that's the preamble isn't it?)

That was a lot better, as far as clarification... So all woman have to protect their civil rights are the right to vote... and a patchwork of state laws protecting their civil rights? I wonder what his political opinion on an equal rights amendment are? I'm sure he'd never say.

What has changed since 1900 when women couldn't go to court in their own name, work or vote. Well the 19th amendment gave them the right to vote. How did they get all these other rights? Or is just that no one is denying them these rights anymore?

I guess I just see equal protection under the law as a major thing... so many civil right's hinge on the equal protection clause.

I guess the truth of what he said is somewhere in between these two statements in my opinion.

Always good talking with you Hempcat.

p.s. I agree the three woman on the court would probably disagree... I wonder if in Scalia's opinion those three have no constitutional right to sit on the supreme court? I don't recall the constitution enumerating that right either... see my earlier post where the court decided that woman couldn't be a lawyer because they felt the 14th amendment didn't apply to women.

It's probably more accurate to say that Scalia would feel that the constitution doesn't specifically give or take away a woman's right to sit on the Supreme Court.

Look the way I see it is that there does not need to be specific constituional protections for women as women are not a minority. Granted they have been treated as such in the past but in the present I think it fair to say that whatever rights that come from saying "All men are created equal..." are not just limited to men but rather cover all Humens regardless of sex.

That's more or less what I got from what Scalia was saying. Now maybe I interpreted him wrongly but the bottomline, in my opinion, is that in Modern times in America, women are not being discriminated against in any ways that laws can correct or have jurisdiction over.

 

[Greensub]

It's probably more accurate to say that Scalia would feel that the constitution doesn't specifically give or take away a woman's right to sit on the Supreme Court.

Ok... then from that & his specific comments it would mean that if congress was to pass a law stopping women from being on the supreme court (not that I see this happening... just conjecture) when it was taken to the SCOTUS to determine constitutionality, his position would be that there's nothing wrong with that law.

Look the way I see it is that there does not need to be specific constituional protections for women as women are not a minority. Granted they have been treated as such in the past but in the present I think it fair to say that whatever rights that come from saying "All men are created equal..." are not just limited to men but rather cover all Humens regardless of sex.

You may see it that way... I may see it that way... but does Scalia see it that way? I get the distinct impression that he doesn't. Let's look at section 1 of the 14th amendment.

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.

the question he was asked about...

I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination

his answer...

Yes, yes.

I believe in modern times "All Persons" means all persons. Would it be fair to say that Scalia interprets it by what people believed "All Persons" meant in 1868, and in that case... I wonder what he would say if asked about "All Men"

That's more or less what I got from what Scalia was saying. Now maybe I interpreted him wrongly but the bottomline, in my opinion, is that in Modern times in America, women are not being discriminated against in any ways that laws can correct or have jurisdiction over.

In my opinion the bottom line is that women are not being discriminated against in modern times beacause they are being protected by the equal protection clause currently. I posted the main cases the SCOTUS has decided recently that are currently protecting women (and men...) against sexual discrimination. I can't help but interpret his answers to mean that in his opinion this is wrong.