Scalia Scary!

apple0154 said:
Disagree. During times of war most populations do not have a choice but to fight (they are drafted) and most populations do not have a "dog in the fight" either. That means, once captured, the people can no longer fight so there is no legitimate reason to punish them other than detain them and prevent them from fighting. Anything else is cruel punishment.



The 14th Amendment is about equality. No society can be considered "free" and "just" if it practices any form of discrimination. Surely that is evident enough.
Click to expand...
You can disagree all you want...its your right, but you miss the point of the discussion....(and TC always misses the point):palm:

they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today's society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual

Cruel and unusual of today is NOT the cruel and unusual of the past, and that is what Scalia is saying...its quite meaningless because it can mean ANYTHING the current society wants it to mean..(which is why we need legislators .....)

and the 14th was written and voted on in 1868, do you actually imagine the writers were thinking about homosexual rights then ?

This is why Scalia points out that we have Congress and legislators to enact laws that reflects the values and ideals of the society of today....
 
bravo said:
You can disagree all you want...its your right, but you miss the point of the discussion....(and TC always misses the point):palm:

they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today's society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual

Cruel and unusual of today is NOT the cruel and unusual of the past, and that is what Scalia is saying...its quite meaningless because it can mean ANYTHING the current society wants it to mean..(which is why we need legislators .....)

and the 14th was written and voted on in 1868, do you actually imagine the writers were thinking about homosexual rights then ?

This is why Scalia points out that we have Congress and legislators to enact laws that reflects the values and ideals of the society of today....
Click to expand...

If the purpose is to determine what the Founders originally meant then discrimination is discrimination. Surely one does not expect every possible discrimination to be listed. The Constitution did not specifically mention women or gays and a lot of other things that may be considered discrimination.

It has nothing to do with the current society and that's precisely the problem why change is so slow coming.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yes. justice and equality are better served that way than in AA.
Click to expand...

Justice delayed is justice denied. Once things have relatively equaled out, in other words the number of cases of discrimination can be dealt with effectively, then looking at individual cases will be the ideal.
 
apple0154 said:
Justice delayed is justice denied. Once things have relatively equaled out, in other words the number of cases of discrimination can be dealt with effectively, then looking at individual cases will be the ideal.
Click to expand...

equaled out? so lets discriminate another group of people to make it fair, then we'll look at individual cases?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Are women not American citizens?
Click to expand...

That's not the issue:

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 94-1941 v. VIRGINIA et al. VIRGINIA, et al., PETITIONERS 94-2107
on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit

[June 26, 1996]

Justice Scalia , dissenting.

The all male constitution of VMI comes squarely within such a governing tradition. Founded by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1839 and continuously maintained by it since, VMI has always admitted only men. And in that regard it has not been unusual. For almost all of VMI's more than a century and a half of existence, its single sex status reflected the uniform practice for government supported military colleges. Another famous Southern institution, The Citadel, has existed as a state funded school of South Carolina since 1842. And all the federal military colleges--West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and even the Air Force Academy, which was not established until 1954--admitted only males for most of their history. Their admission of women in 1976 (upon which the Court today relies, see ante, at 27-28, nn. 13, 15), came not by court decree, but because the people, through their elected representatives, decreed a change. See, e.g., Pub. L. 94-106, §803(a), 89 Stat. 537-538 (1975). In other words, the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
If the purpose is to determine what the Founders originally meant then discrimination is discrimination. Surely one does not expect every possible discrimination to be listed. The Constitution did not specifically mention women or gays and a lot of other things that may be considered discrimination.

It has nothing to do with the current society and that's precisely the problem why change is so slow coming.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not mention "discrimination" either....so it has everything to do with current society....
That is the very reason for Amendments....to amend the original document to reflect a changing society.
 
bravo said:
The Constitution does not mention "discrimination" either....so it has everything to do with current society....
That is the very reason for Amendments....to amend the original document to reflect a changing society.
Click to expand...

Why do folks continue to dismiss the Preamble, the intent of the Founders, when interpreting the Constitution?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (I'm sure a link isn't necessary.) :)

Any form of discrimination is counter to justice and domestic tranquility and, most certainly, the blessings of liberty.
 
evince said:
Dear idiot, It is illegal under the constitution to treat a citizen in a way that strips them of the right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Click to expand...
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution...
 
apple0154 said:
It should be illegal, however, the problem was/is so big a different approach had to be taken.
Click to expand...
Thats like saying we need to kill 20% of the prison population because of overcrowding....
Or we should release 20% for the same reason....
Nonsense either way.
 
apple0154 said:
Not practical. Investigate every job hiring? Every admittance to a school?
Click to expand...

No. Only where discrimination is alleged by a victim. Just like other crimes.

your preemptive and cursory discrimination against white males is unconstitutional in the extreme. It's ghastly that you believe discrimination is an antidote to discrimination. Your character is a perversion of morality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top