I want to be on record saying: The minute any Congress Critter cuts Medicare or Social Security benefits, the retirement benefits for government workers should be exactly the same as they legislate for every other American!
I’m ready to march on Washington!
31 responses to “Tuesday, 1/4/11, Public Square”
Scalia: Women Don’t Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination
14th Amendment’s equal protection clause states: “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.”
Do you guess Scalia thinks women aren’t ‘persons,’ or maybe not citizens, not deserving of equal protection? Of course, we already know he thinks corporations are ‘persons.’
Does anyone else ever wonder how any thinking female can agree with Republican ideas?
I wouldn’t call Justice Scalia’s approach to the 14th Amendment a “Republican idea”, fnord. For this to be true would require most Republican politicians to achieve an intellectual level far above the reach of most, imho; not to say the latter does not apply to politicians of all stripes, BTW.
No, Justice Scalia is looking at the provisions of the Constitution (including Amendments thereto) through the prism of “originalism”. Taking this approach to its logical extreme, the 14th Amendment, as a part of the Civil War Amendments, is aimed squarely at former slaves; nothing more. Since all former slaves are deceased, it serves no further purpose.
I do not agree with the Justice in his approach; however, to arrive at his position requires a bit more intellectual effort than the general run of the mill misogynist is willing (or, in many cases, capable of) to put forth.
If you look at Republican ideas and compare them to Democratic ideas, how do women rate in being equal, in being trusted to make their own decisions?
I understand those old white rich men wanting to go back to the ‘original’ Constitution.
There is a substantial difference, fnord, in the particular area of reproductive rights, the result of Ronald Reagan’s tragic error in judgment. Otherwise, I really see few differences.
Back to “originalism” for a moment. Think about the Nineteenth Amendment, if you will. Given the more modern construction of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not needed. The fact that it was needed puts another arrow in the quiver of the “originalists”, imho, especially in the area covered by Justice Scalia’s remarks. His points about legislative enactments are valid, but he (perhaps purposefully) ignores the political realities. I find it interesting, btw, that he speaks of a democracy, when I’m sure most would agree that he would be certain to note that the United States was formed as a republic; a “kind of” representative one, and one that has become a bit more representative (in theory) over time, to be sure, but a republic and not a democracy, nonetheless.
Dad passed on Jan. 04, 2004, I would go to him when the world seemed to be spinning out of control.
He would smile and put it all in prospective, his kind voice would say the words I so needed to hear.
Even today and years later, when my mind gets so heavy I once again I see his knowing smile and hear his voice and the words to put it all in prospective…. I love you dad.
Both my parents are still living – so I cannot possibly know how it feels to lose a parent. Your tribute to your dad is so loving.
I suspect the son is alot like his dad?
Seems that Navy Commander who made those raunchy videos has a fan club.
How interesting that we profess to be so morally superior but yet when it comes right down to it – we really like the raunchy stuff, don’t we? As long as the ‘right’ people are making it and displaying it.
The Navy has a bit of a history in “raunchy” behaviors. Check out Operation Tailhook sometime.
Indy, it goes (this instance) with the military, plain and simple. Not that all members operate in this manner, but given the “club” (read Academy grads) that make up the bulk of the senior officer corps in the respective services, why should anything else be expected.
Finally, Navy Captain = O6 (Colonel in Army, Air Force, Marines), just to illustrate the point.
I agree with your spot-on assessment of this situation. But it does beg the question then – why are these same folks who like the raunchy stuff so against homosexuals in the military because of the suspected behavior?
That is where I think the hypocrisy of the anti-gay folks shines the brightest.
I would not want this same kind of raunchy stuff going on if it is heterosexuals or homosexuals doing it. But I guess I am one of those social liberals that can see there is a big difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
I just don’t see why we all cannot be adults and get past this middle-school mindset?
Ah, indy, you just said the magic word; “adults”. While I hold most senior officers I have met in high regard, there is a “frat boy” mentality that is pervasive among many, who not surprisingly are/were academy grads. I think this goes along with the fact that the academies were not coeducational in my years of active duty, and while the officers produced were, for the most part, “top drawer”, they lacked a certain maturity that I believe results from the enforced isolation from “normal” society experienced as cadets.
Since the academies became coed, there seems to me to have been a reduction in the boorish behavior; either that, or they have become better at keeping it under wraps.
Scalia cuts bits and pieces out of the Constitution to prove his points much like Christians do with the Bible.
As to the idea in the post: I wholeheartedly agree.
Hi new sense, welcome to PPPs.
I’m looking forward to the new members of the House reading the Constitution aloud! I think there will be many interpretations of those words and simply reading it is nothing but silly showmanship. Which begs the question, What’s new?
Scalia is a pompous pig in my book. A smart one, yes, but often he comes off being a smart aleck.
As for the Republicans crowing about having each bill being justified by stating the Constitutionality – I think I heard it on Keith Olbermann last night that particular requirement has been on the books since 1999.
Did anyone else hear about this? I was passing through the living room while the show was on, so I might have not heard the entire story.
Here is an interesting article that raises alot of questions. In my opinion – if all the people involved in this situation are okay with it – then who am I to judge?
The Internal Revenue Service has extended the April 15th tax due date to April 18th due to the 15th being a holiday.
Correct me if I am wrong 6176, but hasn’t the IRS always extended the tax due date if the 15th falls on a holiday or weekend due to the fact that the Postal Service is not officially working those days?
It’s been awhile since I worked in a tax return preparation office, but that rule seems to stick in mind for some reason.
Not only Christians pick and choose the bits they want – that particular practice also seems to apply to politicians that like to cherry pick the facts in order to invade another country.
Scalia is not alone in his disdain for women’s equal rights. I remember the ERA when it was first introduced.
My, you would have thought the world was going to come to an end the way some of the men threw such hissy fits.
Sad to say, I think those same men are throwing the same hissy fits today.
But I wonder how many of those Republicans who think like Scalia are happy to have women work for them and make less pay than if they had to pay a man to do the same job?
My best friend said when it passed and about Women’s lib in general:
“It is nice that women want to lower themselves to the level of men.”
He was raised in that old fashion way that women were superior to men and should be treated so.
6176 wrote: Since the academies became coed, there seems to me to have been a reduction in the boorish behavior; either that, or they have become better at keeping it under wraps.
Sad to say, I suspect it is the latter.
What I still don’t get is this – we profess to be such a Christian, morally superior country but yet when this kind of middle-school mindset boorish behavior is uncovered on a Navy ship that is being paid for my taxpayer money, we still have people who defend this kind of behavior.
Does anyone else remember the reports of the private contractors in our war zones that are being paid by US taxpayer dollars having their raunchy sex-themed parties?
Again – I have to ask this – if we profess to be so Christian and morally superior – why is this behavior tolerated and/or even held up as ‘what’s the big deal?’
I am thinking particularly of the Muslim countries that see anything like a sexy raunchy party as being abhorrent to their religion. So how much credibility do we the right to claim to profess to be Christians and still tolerate this raunchy sex stuff.
It’s kinda like the Catholic Church and their cover up of the child molestation. Once that was out – all their credibility went out the window – IMHO.
Asked his favorite book, Michael Steele said Tolstoy’s War and Peace, then added, ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.’ The line, of course, comes from Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.
We all know that – but I have to wonder how many Republicans in the room or have heard this story know the difference?
In reading the threader paragraph – I am thinking of all those television ads recently where Medicare seniors are talking about all the new health care benefits they get since Obamacare passed?
Where is the Tea Party Republicans protesting, ranting and screaming about these ads?
It is conspicously quiet – dont you think?
Seriously though – I do think we need to tackle Medicare and make it more effective. We are currently spending alot of money on things that do very little good. I work in the nursing home industry and I can tell you some of the things Medicare pays for is outlandish and has nothing to do with medical care.
It’s still a system where a shrewd huckster can get in there and abuse the system.
But I think that is true of any big program like this – look at the war contracts and the abuse/fraud that is rampant in thise government programs.
As for Social Security – we do need to think ahead for the younger generation and their benefits. With the average recipient of Social Security living longer, more money is needed to keep that program afloat.
I don’t know what the answer is and I am not claiming to know. But it is only common sense to know that when the fastest growing population is that group which is receiving the government benefits, and the unemployment rate keeps going higher, and the level of pay for those jobs we do mange to hang on to keeps going down due to nobody wanting to pay decent wages – where does that leave the future of Social Security?
I agree that changes need to be made. I also still think if Congress Critters enjoyed the same benefits they legislate for Americans the legislation may be better thought out. I feel the same way about health-care coverage.
I totally agree with you about the elected officials should have the very same benefits that we get.
Whenever I hear one of the Republicans complain about paying people to do nothing – I just about bite my tongue in two.
Exactly what have the taxpayers been doing for the past two years when Republicans all stomped their feet and just said NO? They could have all saved us a buttload of money and called in their votes from their own homes.
Just imagine how much we could saved by not paying those buffoons while they sitting around and doing nothing.
Seems there is another large bird die-off, but this time in Louisiana.
Now if only there was a way to tie this to Obama and blame him. We are talking about two southern red states here – so it is only a matter of time – isn’t it?
Maybe Daniel Issa will put this on his list of investigations. After all, we cannot be too careful…
correction: Darrell Issa…..
Has anyone here been following this case out of Andover with that coach and the alledged unfair tryouts?
Yes, I have. Dismissal was appropriate. The coach has other issues with which to deal. I don’t recall, but I believe the coach is not a teacher, but merely a coach. Allowance of a school being allowed to hire a coach who is not otherwise a teacher was one of the worst decisions ever made by KSHSAA, IMHO.