Justice Scalia: Constitution Does Not Ban Sex Discrimination

by W.F. Price on September 23, 2010

Writing for Time, which has apparently become a feminist mouthpiece, Adam Cohen rips into Justice Antonin Scalia for saying that the 14th amendment, which was specifically written to enfranchise former slaves, was never intended to ban sex discrimination. Cohen is disturbed that Scalia refuses to “reimagine” the Constitution, which is supposedly an “organism that was meant to grow.”

Actually, Cohen has it a bit wrong here. The Constitution was not intended to be the growing organism, but rather the people it serves. So, yes, the Constitution is subject to change, but there is a process for doing so. Reinterpreting it from the bench to suit modern trends was not the process the framers had in mind. Scalia correctly points out that the proper procedure for this is through legislation rather than judicial creativity, saying:

If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislators.

I’ll take a little bit of liberty in interpreting Scalia, and speculate that what he is really saying is:

“you know you can outlaw discrimination by sex, but you don’t really want to — you just want us judges to pick and choose from the bench in your favor.”

Any Supreme Court Justice knows full well that outlawing sexual discrimination would make a good many of the laws that pertain to the respective sexes technically illegal, and that these laws overwhelmingly favor women. The Equal Rights Amendment didn’t fail ratification because men stood up and put a stop to it — it died because some women clearly saw the implications and didn’t want anything to do with it. Women may often seem nutty and confused from a male perspective, but, just like men, they are rational actors in their own self-interest.

The death gap, the mancession, the glass ceiling and the prison gap are all partly due to legislation that favors women. Child custody and family law imbalances are a result of the same. Women are preferentially given less demanding and more secure jobs in government, they are favored in business loans, and receive more than their fair share in education and health care. All of this and much more could be challenged if sex discrimination were outlawed.

Of course, that doesn’t mean it would change, but the law would still be there, and even if a current court ignores it a future court might pay closer attention.

Unfortunately, too many Americans today are infected with a kind of intellectual laziness — actually, it’s more like a selfish stupidity. When certain groups demand that judges legislate from the bench in their favor, what they are really doing is betraying a desire to have their cake and eat it. Women don’t really want sexual equality — they want to keep their current advantages and use “equality” as a justification for leveraging themselves into an even more privileged position.

If people in black robes do it for them, that suits them fine.

{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }

Migu September 23, 2010 at 12:00

Sorry welmer.

Accepting the Idea that constitution i.e. the foundation of the law is subject to change, is tantamount to saying murder is legal so long as the “people” have gone through the due process of making it so.

Law requires set assumptions that can never be changed in order for it perform it’s proper function. Things like “Murder is Illegal.” With our subject to change through due process doctrine we end up with “Murder is Illegal unless you have a licesne.” That is to say you wear a costume, badge, and gun.

Customs can and do change, but when a custom, such as human sacrifice, becomes law, we lose the very benefit law provides to society. i.e. redress for grievances.

The constitution is the law, and it designed to be fluid. The constitution is flawed law. Look where it has led us.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 25
Nemo September 23, 2010 at 12:05

Let’s pass a law stating that women must serve in the armed forces and in dangerous occupations in ever-greater numbers, until the death rates among soldiers and workers of each genders equalizes at 50%.

We could call it the “True Equality Act”.

Heck, I’d like to see some elderly Congressman who’s about to retire propose such a bill. It would never even reach a vote, but it would make a point: the true cost of feminism is always paid in blood by men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
SingleDad September 23, 2010 at 12:50

I agree with you Price, and that is why the femtards want feminist females, “who through their life experience know better” than any penis endowed person. Once we lose the Scalia’s of the court we will feel the full force of the gynocracy.

Or, maybe we should push for the ERA amendment. If I remember correctly a bunch of states voted for it, it wouldn’t take too many more.

Maybe a stunt like trying to pass the ERA would create a national discussion point as a wedge to get the MRM into the main stream media (although, in discussion boards we are there already).

This is similar to the way Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks are using shared parenting laws to attack the candidacy of state Senator Cynthia Creem.

I mean how wonderfully ironic would it be to hear the femtards trying to argue against their own amendment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price September 23, 2010 at 12:56

Maybe a stunt like trying to pass the ERA would create a national discussion point as a wedge to get the MRM into the main stream media (although, in discussion boards we are there already).

This is similar to the way Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks are using shared parenting laws to attack the candidacy of state Senator Cynthia Creem.

I mean how wonderfully ironic would it be to hear the femtards trying to argue against their own amendment.

The feminists caught on and are now endorsing a “new and improved” ERA, which should really be called the “better than equal rights amendment.”

W.F. Price September 23, 2010 at 12:59

…is tantamount to saying murder is legal so long as the “people” have gone through the due process of making it so.

It is legal under that circumstance. The due process is called a “declaration of war.”

keyster September 23, 2010 at 13:12

Here’s a bit from the WSJ, on topic, that will make you laugh until you cry:
Interlopers Run Amok: Guys Crash Road Races for Women

Positively surreal!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
trent13 September 23, 2010 at 13:31

@ Migu

Wouldn’t that be the problem with democracy in general? That law is subject to the changing moral compass of the populace?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Binxton September 23, 2010 at 13:52

Women don’t really want sexual equality — they want to keep their current advantages and use “equality” as a justification for leveraging themselves into an even more privileged position.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but my own view is that the problem is even more fundamental than that. The problem has to do with the concept of equality itself.

You will not convince women about what their “real” motives are for demanding equality. But even if you did, you will not make much of an impression on them that what they are doing is wrong or unjust towards men.

Women are at their core self-centered creatures, which is why this whole concept of equality was all wrong to begin with. Women’s nature is such that they need to be controlled by men — a fact which totally undermines this whole concept of equality.

“Equality” as a value really shouldn’t be a goal of society, at least as far as men and women are concerned. In a post-liberal, patriarchal society, “equality” would be virtually meaningless.

Dismantling feminism will not come about through piecemeal reforms at the ballot box or legislation. It will come about through a revolutionary process in which the very concept of equality will become, if not eliminated, then subordinated by higher, more aristocratic values that render any such notion of equality quaint, outdated, and deeply flawed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Register September 23, 2010 at 14:15

‘You take out the testosterone and these events are kinder, cleaner, gentler and sweeter’

I can’t understand why simply being a male causes so much hatred amongst feminists. I didn’t ask to be born male and I ain’t going to apologize for it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0
Twirl September 23, 2010 at 14:22

‘You take out the testosterone and these events are kinder, cleaner, gentler and sweeter’

This is something a ‘man’ said, the race’s organizer. He is the finest specimen of Genus Mangina Sapien I have ever seen. I had to do a double take when I read his quote in the article.

He is what used to be known as a self-loathing slave

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Snark September 23, 2010 at 14:34

The problem with a lot of men is that they take women’s talk of ‘equality’ as just that – meaning equality.

But while men speak and think logically and precisely, women do so vaguely and emotionally -

What they really mean by ‘equal’, is ‘at least equal’.

It’s easier for them to succeed where outcomes are obviously not equal; but when they say “women are not equal in xyz,” what they really mean is, “women are not at least equal in xyz.” The unquestioned assumption is that women should be more than equal in every area.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Steve September 23, 2010 at 14:52

Scalia shows no compassion and strictly interpets the Consitution in a logical manner according to the intentions of the framers. Scaliea does not make self-serving decisions. He is a staunch Catholic that adheres to principles.

Funny how a feminist will hiss like a cornered feline when Scalia is mentioned. Scalia thinks with a male brain, which is quite different than the way any female judge thinks. Scalia would likely let the follies of society implode rather than compromise his principles.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Beltain September 23, 2010 at 15:01

I caught the warning Scalia was sending us and I think others have as well.

The last defense men have are the four current “conservative” SCOTUS and (along with Kennedy sometimes) since Scalia is one of them he is letting us know that judicial activism is the real danger in our future. Not that it has been that much of a defense but…

It is there for all to see and Scalia is telling us in as plain a way that a court justice can that if the progressive, feminist, liberals get control of SCOTUS we are doomed and it will all be un-Constitutional but done none-the-less through judicial activism.

Seriously as the other thread from today asks about a Sparticus, if the feminist gain a majority in SCOTUS we will need a rebellion to survive.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Nemo September 23, 2010 at 15:24

Here are two articles about mixing boys and girls on high school field hockey teams. They illustrate how feminist doctrine is left bleeding on the field whenever it bumps into reality:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10262/1088700-364.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/columnists/20000921smizik.asp

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
christianj September 23, 2010 at 15:29

I fear the the word Testosterone is and has been maligned for all the wrong reasons as quoted by the previous poster. Sadly feminists are responsible ofcourse. That substance is a natural requirement of the body as it is in both sexes and it’s does not deserve the malice placed on it..

Testosterone is also very important for continuing good health in many non-reproductive tissues. It is important for:

* the growth of bones and muscles;
* stimulates the bone marrow to make red blood cells;
* mood, sex drive (libido) and certain aspects of mental ability.

In summary, testosterone is needed for the best possible health in men.

I think we should stop referring to it as some negative compound, utilised only to malign men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Paradoxotaur September 23, 2010 at 15:46

OT, Re: testosterone- 200s to over 1200 ng./dl. considered normal for men and from 15 to 70 ng./dl. considered normal for women. It’s essential for both sexes. High levels of testosterone (relative, in either sex) are associated with high sex drive, and high levels in men are further associated with affability and gregariousness. Estrogen is closely linked with irritability and aggressive behavior ~PMS. Feminists’ blather about testosterone appears to be yet another example of female projection.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Keyster September 23, 2010 at 16:05

“This is something a ‘man’ said, the race’s organizer.”

Female empowerment chic is BIG money, especially if you’re a man promoting it. Grrls will pay all kinds of money to be a part of these kinds of events. Start a “Woman’s Conference…” on something and they won’t be able to join up and pay you fast enough. “Women’s Culture” is an industry worth billions…women in business, fashion and style, health and beauty, new age mythology, and of course these running events are huge across the cuntry, I mean cOuntry.

Those disposable dollars have to go some where.
You can only spend so much on Meow Mix.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Gunn September 23, 2010 at 16:16

Am I missing something here? If the US constitution included the concept of equality of the sexes, then wouldn’t this override the existing anti-man laws that have been passed?

Or is it possible to retain legislation that runs counter to the constitution?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
JohnJ September 23, 2010 at 16:30

“Women may often seem nutty and confused from a male perspective, but, just like men, they are rational actors in their own self-interest.”

If this is true, why are women winning?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
W.F. Price September 23, 2010 at 16:33

If this is true, why are women winning?

Because when it comes to real “self-interest,” they are actually even more rational and calculating than men.

NWOslave September 23, 2010 at 16:36

I’ve heard this crap all too often that the constitution is a living growing entity.

Here’s article I section IX of the constitution before being amended…”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid.”

Here it is after the amendment…Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Basically it says the exact opposite of what our founders intended. I liked it a lot much better before it was a living, growing organism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
misterb September 23, 2010 at 16:48

You got that right brother.

As I mention before Price. idiocy reigns supreme. It’s a shame really when scores of men, are infected with selfish stupidity.

One of the evils of feminism is that it distorts reality. My father once said, some women are plain evil.

The constitution had been messed around by some far left dim-wits. The original constitution was meant to serve the American people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Binxton September 23, 2010 at 17:02

If the US constitution included the concept of equality of the sexes, then wouldn’t this override the existing anti-man laws that have been passed?

If all we had to do was rely on a piece of paper with nice words written on it (i.e., the Constitution), we wouldn’t be in this mess we’re in today.

Real solutions do not arise from written pieces of paper. They arise from determined men willing to take, kill, and conquer to get what they want.

The Constitution served its purpose well, but it has outlived its usefulness. We are now witnessing the slow, but inevitable demise of current western civilization.

It is not legal pronouncements from the Supreme Court that will save us. Only a complete re-building of society from the ground up will do that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
SingleDad September 23, 2010 at 17:12

Who ever said women were stupid? They are very good at appearing stupid…..helpless…..poor……weak. They are none of those things, just the opposite.

They are very good at lying to men. They start studying how do manipulate men at a very early age. I’m talking the first 24 months. I watched the girl children and the boy children. The girl children just watch the boys, study them way before they could know it would be useful. My theory is that it’s an inherited behaviour.

Some men may be as good but probably not many based again only on my observation of children. Being a single dad I got to spend alot of time watching children.

One thing they know is that boys like to think about real things, we say their rational. Girls, in my opinion learn early on to manipulate boys via misdirection and mal-communication. Not making sense.

With women it’s been my experience they are perfectly rational. Just as men are. They want it all and are not stupid enough to want to work for it.

It must have been hard for the 60′s feminists to fool women into their current position.

But around me I see women that 40 years ago would not have to work, spending day after day doing drudging paperwork, cleaning offices, taking orders from strangers.

It makes me proud as not one cent of my money goes to providing a female with anything.

NOW they can’t’ even have a race without some dudes, quit legally ruining their running of the vag. Nice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
fondueguy September 23, 2010 at 17:48

“it died because some women clearly saw the implications and didn’t want anything to do with it. Women may often seem nutty and confused from a male perspective, but, just like men, they are rational actors in their own self-interest.”

That’s something to not forget!

Something Paul said back in his ‘problem with gay “rights”‘ article has been sitting in the back of my mind. Before he made the connection I never thought about the ridiculousness of what gay men were fighting for. Paul’s right, its absurd. Gay rights movements co-opted by Feminism is fighting for military service and state marriage. Gay men are the only men born free of such institutions of servitude that primarily serve women. What fucking irony.

He also said this in a post from the same article: “Sure it does. Everything on the feminist agenda is about statism and always has been, the intent being that women would ultimately, by direct action or male proxy, be in control of the state.”

I wonder if they really planned for the gay men that way… Paul may be right and his general statement does apply.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
fondueguy September 23, 2010 at 17:59

@SingleDad September 23, 2010 at 17:12

Some are good but your elevating women way too much. Their not complicated (don’t believe the hype) or particularly clever. They just seem to care less (about making sense, lying, wrong doing) while men still hold them on a pedestal. It looks like men don’t like viewing women as more simple and selfish. Its just the pedestal IMHO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Binxton September 23, 2010 at 21:00

The problem with a lot of men is that they take women’s talk of ‘equality’ as just that – meaning equality… What they really mean by ‘equal’, is ‘at least equal’.

No, the problem with a lot of men is that they deign to listen to women talk about equality — and actually take what they say seriously.

Look, you should know better than to spend time tediously analyzing what women say. To expect women to care about ideas is both stupid and demeaning. Women don’t care about ideas. They care about themselves. Their nature is fundamentally self-centered. Once you understand this, who cares what women “really” mean by “equality”?

I will never understand why many men in the west still insist on placing women on an equal footing with men. Male guilty conscience? Desire to play white knight? As for me, women are essentially children in adult bodies. When you condemn women for being morally in-consistent vis-a-vis men, you are in effect giving women far more credit for their reasoning and ethical capabilities than they deserve.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Gunslingergregi September 23, 2010 at 22:18

lol nemo

that is the way to do it.

Men that don’t cut it in the pros need to go to female pro sports to make money.

Golf would be the big one.

Hell even the guys who do make it.

”””””There are a lot of Neanderthals out there who think because the occasional girl opts to kick for the football team or try out for the wrestling team, that this gives boys the right to intrude on girls’ sports. The comparison is absurd.

Richard Tyler, the executive director of the Maine group, said it best.

“‘When girls play boys’ sports, they don’t change the sport. When boys play girls’ sports, they do, because they tend to assume leadership positions, therefore depriving girls of the opportunity to benefit from participating in an interscholastic sport.”
”””””””””’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10
Migu September 24, 2010 at 04:25

Yes, and/or an authorization of force from the congress, or Judicial immunity, or police immunity, etc…… That was the point; it is arbitrary.

Also, self defense is already legal, and it is not murder. That being the difference. If you have mutable law, it is arbitrary, and arbitrary law is hallmark of every tyrant and authoritarian.

The constitution ought be rendered, and the “people” ought form their own laws respective to their locales. We have it somewhat now, unless a locale gets to uppity. Then the alphabet soup comes in to “pacify” things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Migu September 24, 2010 at 04:26

Yes, and/or an authorization of force from the congress, or Judicial immunity, or police immunity, etc…… That was the point; it is arbitrary.

Also, self defense is already legal, and it is not murder. That being the difference. If you have mutable law, it is arbitrary, and arbitrary law is hallmark of every tyrant and authoritarian.

The constitution ought be rendered, and the “people” ought form their own laws respective to their locales. We have it somewhat now, unless a locale gets too uppity. Then the alphabet soup comes in to “pacify” things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
thehermit September 24, 2010 at 06:27

Who ever said women were stupid? They are very good at appearing stupid…..helpless…..poor……weak. They are none of those things, just the opposite.

Correct. That’s something what every men should keep in his mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Snark September 24, 2010 at 06:34

The problem with a lot of men is that they take women’s talk of ‘equality’ as just that – meaning equality… What they really mean by ‘equal’, is ‘at least equal’.

No, the problem with a lot of men is that they deign to listen to women talk about equality — and actually take what they say seriously.

So, pretty much what I said, but in a different way. And on that basis you go on to call me a White Knight and scoff at me for drawing attention to the distinction between what feminists do and what they say. Nicely done Binxton. Let’s just stop pointing those things out altogether. That has sure worked for the last 60 years.

No, the problem with a lot of men is that they would rather fight each other over petty bullshit than actually stand together against feminism. I’ve made my choice, Binxton, and I’m saying nothing more to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
Reader September 24, 2010 at 08:48

Snark,

I think that Binxton was making the point that the actions of many men are logically inconsistent.

Men compile and discuss endless evidence that the moral, and often rational, decision-making capabilities of women are equivalent to those of children.

But, instead of adjusting their behavior to be consistent with the reality that they have identified, men persist in treating women as adults, and then becoming angry and disgusted when women behave, in fact, as children.

A more logically consistent response would be to control, and nurture (at least the ones with the potential to be good), women similarly to how you would children.

Being a white knight in this way (perhaps without even realizing it) was being offered as a speculative reason for the logically self-contradictory behavior of many men.

And, at this point, we are talking about philosophical direction, rather than something that can be implemented immediately and comprehensively, in real life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Richard September 24, 2010 at 09:42

First, Time Magazine is a joke:

http://www.theonion.com/video/time-announces-new-version-of-magazine-aimed-at-ad,17950/

I heard somebody mention something about forcing women to register for the draft…

MY IDEA:

Make a law: YOU CANNOT VOTE OR RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE UNLESS YOU ARE REGISTERED FOR THE DRAFT.

I would really like to hear people’s thoughts on this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
HQR3 September 24, 2010 at 10:00

Richard’s comment amended:
YOU CANNOT VOTE OR RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE UNLESS YOU ARE REGISTERED TO BE DRAFTED INTO COMBAT (potentially).
Were women drafted but exempt from combat, they would sop up all the non-combatant jobs, forcing most, if not all, men into the meatgrinder. And to make things worse, their training would make them more employable after service, unlike the men who were forced into combat.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Epoetker September 24, 2010 at 10:18

Robert Heinlein’s idea, eh? I’d rather put it this way:

You cannot vote or hold public office while receiving government money in the form of welfare, disability, or Social Security UNLESS you are either an active service member or a military retiree who has actually deployed in support of a war. It is the job of the well to take care of the sick, the job of the young to take care of the old, and the job of the responsible to take care of the irresponsible. Dependents cannot vote. Pretty simple.

The Dependocrats will whine, of course. But their relevance is fast declining, and their best spokespeople are fleeing the Administration and morphing into the new RINOs as we speak.

Once the older white knights and AFDC queens are out of the picture, reforming the divorce laws will be a snap in the next election cycle.

Though there should also be a redistricting-I’m hearing nasty things about rotten boroughs lately.

Maybe we should consider dependents as three fifths of a person for representation purposes? (The history you laughed at always comes back to bite you in the ass, it seems.) Or perhaps a sliding scale of representative personhood for how long they’ve been or will be on the government dime?

Never said it was nice, but at least it’d be open and honest. Covert rationing is the most wasteful of all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Jesse September 24, 2010 at 10:19

We do have anti-discrimination laws in Australia that apply to sex as well as race, they are just never applied to discrimination against men. The pussy pass works just as well for them under that legislation as it does in other criminal cases. We have anti-villification laws as well (ie. we don’t have free speech) but again, the pussy pass gazumps that as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Paradoxotaur September 24, 2010 at 11:01

@Jesse: “We do have anti-discrimination laws in Australia that apply to sex as well as race, they are just never applied to discrimination against men.”

Same here in California. The Unruh Civil Rights act of 1959:

“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Legislated law, just like Justice Scalia suggests. Totally ignored where ever wimmenz are in charge (and in many cases where their pet poodles are in charge, too). Oddly, a common excuse for their sexist bigotry and discrimination is that men/boys aren’t a protected class under U.S. Constitutional/USSC law. Cearly a flawed argument, but especially so in light of Justice Scalia’s comments above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
SM September 24, 2010 at 14:36

Migu September 23, 2010 at 12:00

Sorry welmer.

Accepting the Idea that constitution i.e. the foundation of the law is subject to change, is tantamount to saying murder is legal so long as the “people” have gone through the due process of making it so.

Law requires set assumptions that can never be changed in order for it perform it’s proper function. Things like “Murder is Illegal.” With our subject to change through due process doctrine we end up with “Murder is Illegal unless you have a licesne.” That is to say you wear a costume, badge, and gun.

Customs can and do change, but when a custom, such as human sacrifice, becomes law, we lose the very benefit law provides to society. i.e. redress for grievances.

The constitution is the law, and it designed to be fluid. The constitution is flawed law. Look where it has led us.

I hate the constitution and will fight to the death to destroy it and its people. BUT it is an amendable _by design._

I agree that Laws shouldn’t change. Indeed amenability is probability the single biggest flaw in the american theory of civics. That was the fatal flaw that let the parasites take over.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
SM September 24, 2010 at 14:58

Binxton September 23, 2010 at 13:52

Correct. Well done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
SM September 24, 2010 at 15:01

Binxton September 23, 2010 at 21:00

Ooh. Correct again, Binxton.

….Another child athlete plumb growed, ladies and gentlemen.

——-

Death to democracy. Eugenics solves all problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
SM September 24, 2010 at 15:05

Keyster September 23, 2010 at 16:05

Female empowerment chic is BIG money, especially if you’re a man promoting it. Grrls will pay all kinds of money to be a part of these kinds of events. Start a “Woman’s Conference…” on something and they won’t be able to join up and pay you fast enough. “Women’s Culture” is an industry worth billions…women in business, fashion and style, health and beauty, new age mythology, and of course these running events are huge across the cuntry, I mean cOuntry.

I thought capitalism was going to set us free though…

Those disposable dollars have to go some where.
You can only spend so much on Meow Mix.

LOL

Borat says “Nice!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
gwallan September 25, 2010 at 03:51

Jesse said…
We do have anti-discrimination laws in Australia that apply to sex as well as race, they are just never applied to discrimination against men. The pussy pass works just as well for them under that legislation as it does in other criminal cases. We have anti-villification laws as well (ie. we don’t have free speech) but again, the pussy pass gazumps that as well.

Here’s how it’s done…

All state and federal governments have created laws forbidding gender discrimination. They have each set up equal opportunity “commissions”, always appointed women to the roles of “commissioner”, employed only women and acted only on womens’ behalf.

These commissions get around the “equal opportunity” laws by issuing what they call “exemptions” to any womens org which requests it. In effect they issue permits to break the law. Apart from echoing any feminist perspective currently in the public discourse that appears to be their only function.

An example of the type of woman appointed to these roles is former federal commissioner Moira Raynor who, when asked about Quantas moving male passengers away from unaccompanied children, called it a “good idea”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Migu September 25, 2010 at 06:53

Law is in a way like religion.

You will never be able to show empirical proof of why the original supposition is accurate. The only tool is logic. When the logic breaks down, as it does with arbitrary law, you go back to where it was broken and devise a new solution.

The constitution was broken at it’s inception. We need look only to the “Whiskey Rebellion” to see this. The American Army invaded Pennsylvania, suspended the bill of rights, and put down the rebellion.

The constitution, according to popular myth, was designed to prevent the law from becoming arbitrary. In this it has failed utterly.

However the designers of the constitution have accomplished their intended goal, empire.

The designers did not include the bill of rights in the constitution. The constitution is Articles 1-7. Those articles are blanket assumption of empire by Philadelphia, and later the Capitol District. The Amended agreement is articles 1-7 and amendments 1-10. Amendments 1-10 provided certain restrictions on articles 1-7.

Today’s constitution is the triumph of articles 1-7 over the restrictions of amendments 1-10. The constiution has done exactly what it was designed to do. Given blanket power to the executive in order to promulgate empire.

The constitution is flawed law, it’s logic broke down long ago.

Though as is in the document it can be amended. Could the entire thing be nullified/abolished with a 28th Amendment? Sure it could, do you think the Federal government would listen?

I don’t, which is why I see the constitution as a useless tool.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Robert September 25, 2010 at 11:06

The “tree” of liberty is very thirsty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
SemperFi September 27, 2010 at 21:29

Let’s get a few things straight (a) the 14th A did not enfranchise slaves–it enfranchised MALE slaves–(b) ALL women had to wait until 1920 to become enfranchised–a change that I am sure that all of you guys would like to see reversed in your own perverse way; (b) women are in combat in Afganistan and were in combat in Iraq–in fact one platoon of women, aptly termed the “Lionesses,” was attached and fought with a Marine unit–SIDE BY SIDE and sustained casualities–DUH; (c) it might shock you but the data is out–when men actually contest custody, they win over 90% of the time–GEE; (d) and in custody disputes women are routinely dinged for working outside the home whereas when guys even know the name of the kid’s teacher, the court is awe struck and it enures to the guy’s as a favorable–highly favorable factor–WHOA; (e) women in the military are piloting F-16′s, in combat, commanding ships and now will be allowed on to subs–HOLY COW; (e) women are still underrepresented in managerial jobs nationwide–notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary (article in NYTIMES this evening–online)–JEEPERS; (f) and women are still underrepresented in law firms, surgery specialities and within Fortune 500 Boards.

And my friends, if you realy believe that the Constitution is a static document–then all the car cases, cell phone, computer cases in criminal procedure should not have been decided–because NOWHERE in the 4th Amendment does it say, “All citizens shall be secure in their cars, cell phone and internet communications.” WHy ? Because the founding Daddys didn’t conceive of this technology. So how did the US Supreme court get there? BY INTERPRETATION. SO my friends, if you want to be consistent–then those new fangled objects fall outside the protection of the Constitution. So if you are consistent–this medium would be unprotected against unreasonable searches and seizures by the State. You guys show how incredibly unschooled you really are. And if the rantings on this website weren’t so pitiful and dangerous, I and my buddies would be LOL. My wife wonders why I even bother…b/c someone has to correct the outright misrepresentations that are made on this site. But then with sites like this-truth is the first casualty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: