Scalia Scary!

bravo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Release those imprisoned for marijuana, that would make a HUGE difference in prison population and reduce overcrowding!

Marijuana

The legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, especially, will greatly reduce the prison populations. About 85 percent of marijuana-related arrests are possession arrests. Every day, law enforcement officials waste their time and our tax dollars by arresting people merely for possessing the drug. Additionally, U.S. prisons are full with marijuana offenders, people who have never done anything to harm anyone else. If marijuana was decriminalized and these "offenders" set free, there would be more space in our prisons for dangerous, violent criminals like rapists, child molesters, murderers, and such, who pose an actual threat to society. The public may never know why the federal government is so insistent about keeping marijuana illegal, why it insists upon wasting its scarce prison space on creatures as harmless as marijuana smokers or why it refuses to acknowledge the plant's potential benefits.

http://www.squidoo.com/prison-overcrowding-is-quickly-becoming-a-major-problem-in-the-united-states
 
Damn Yankee said:
"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
Click to expand...

Even after witnessing your posts for a considerable length of time I didn't expect you to be quite so disingenuous. The quote reads, "Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity,.."

You deliberately left out the "but" part and when "but" immediately follows a statement it is part of that statement. It adds additional meaning to the statement, further clarifies it. (I believe it's called a conjunction.)

As Madison made clear the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning is absurd and as I noted in msg. 50, "Any form of discrimination is counter to justice and domestic tranquility and, most certainly, the blessings of liberty."

To assume that because Madison did not enumerate every possible circumstance which would counter justice and domestic tranquility and liberty those circumstances would be acceptable is the height of absurdity.
 
bravo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not to hijack the thread but you bring up a very good point. Far too many people are jailed when an alternative would be much better.

As for releasing them some jails do exactly that due to overcrowding.
 
AssHatZombie said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it's not just white males. It's all males of any color except black.
 
apple0154 said:
Even after witnessing your posts for a considerable length of time I didn't expect you to be quite so disingenuous. The quote reads, "Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity,.."

You deliberately left out the "but" part and when "but" immediately follows a statement it is part of that statement. It adds additional meaning to the statement, further clarifies it. (I believe it's called a conjunction.)

As Madison made clear the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning is absurd and as I noted in msg. 50, "Any form of discrimination is counter to justice and domestic tranquility and, most certainly, the blessings of liberty."

To assume that because Madison did not enumerate every possible circumstance which would counter justice and domestic tranquility and liberty those circumstances would be acceptable is the height of absurdity.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are confused beyond reproach. If you want things in context, read Federalist 41 in its entirety and see how Madison expected your argument and countered it forcefully, even mockingly. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
As usual, you are confused beyond reproach. If you want things in context, read Federalist 41 in its entirety and see how Madison expected your argument and countered it forcefully, even mockingly. :)
Click to expand...

Get real. If his goal and the goal of the Founding Fathers was a free and just society then to imply they didn't give a damn about discrimination is ridiculous.

Discrimination: "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

The entire concept of the country was based on one being able to explore their full potential without prejudice and discrimination.

Talk about confused, DY. Get a grip, man!
 
apple0154 said:
Get real. If his goal and the goal of the Founding Fathers was a free and just society then to imply they didn't give a damn about discrimination is ridiculous.

Discrimination: "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

The entire concept of the country was based on one being able to explore their full potential without prejudice and discrimination.

Talk about confused, DY. Get a grip, man!
Click to expand...

It is what it is. If you don't like it, amend it.
 
Damn Yankee said:
As usual, you are confused beyond reproach. If you want things in context, read Federalist 41 in its entirety and see how Madison expected your argument and countered it forcefully, even mockingly. :)
Click to expand...

It is probably why Hamilton lost respect for him and thought him misguided and wasn't Madison writing on commercial discrimination dealing with Great Britain? I don't think it was addressing individuals?
 
apple0154 said:
Because the goal is not to discriminate against any particular party. The goal is to address the pervasiveness of discrimination against blacks.
Click to expand...

i've seen this before. In my very own state. this is your correlation.

texas makes a law prohibiting carrying a handgun unless traveling. the law is only applied to recently freed black men, while whites are considered to be traveling. fast forward a hundred years. the legislature decides that why not apply that prohibition to everyone.

instead of addressing the pervasiveness of discrimination, your policy applies discrimination to all in favor of quotas.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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.


Quote:
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...
Click to expand...

And here's why Scalia was deemed wrong by his colleagues Justices Ginsburg Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer:

Justice Ginsburg wrote:

"We find no persuasive evidence in this record that VMI's male-only admission policy 'is in furtherance of a state policy of diversity.' No such policy, the Fourth Circuit observed, can be discerned from the movement of all other public colleges and universities in Virginia away from single-sex education. A purpose genuinely to advance an array of educational options, as the Court of Appeals recognized, is not served by VMI's historic and constant plan- a plan to 'afford a unique educational benefit only to males.' However 'liberally' this plan serves the State's sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters. That is not equal protection."

... "VWIL affords women no opportunity to experience the rigorous military training for which VMI is famed.... Instead, the VWIL program 'deemphasize' military education, and uses a 'cooperative method' of education 'which reinforces self-esteem.'

"In myriad respects other than military training, VWIL does not qualify as VMI's equal. VWIL's student body, faculty, course offerings, and facilities hardly match VMI's. Nor can the VWIL graduate anticipate the benefits associated with VMI's 157-ye ar history, the school's prestige, and its influential alumni network....

"In sum, Virginia's remedy does not fix the constitutional violation; the State has shown no 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for withholding from women qualified for the experience premier training of the kind VMI affords."
 
Taichiliberal said:
And here's why Scalia was deemed wrong by his colleagues Justices Ginsburg Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer:

Justice Ginsburg wrote:

"We find no persuasive evidence in this record that VMI's male-only admission policy 'is in furtherance of a state policy of diversity.' No such policy, the Fourth Circuit observed, can be discerned from the movement of all other public colleges and universities in Virginia away from single-sex education. A purpose genuinely to advance an array of educational options, as the Court of Appeals recognized, is not served by VMI's historic and constant plan- a plan to 'afford a unique educational benefit only to males.' However 'liberally' this plan serves the State's sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters. That is not equal protection."

... "VWIL affords women no opportunity to experience the rigorous military training for which VMI is famed.... Instead, the VWIL program 'deemphasize' military education, and uses a 'cooperative method' of education 'which reinforces self-esteem.'

"In myriad respects other than military training, VWIL does not qualify as VMI's equal. VWIL's student body, faculty, course offerings, and facilities hardly match VMI's. Nor can the VWIL graduate anticipate the benefits associated with VMI's 157-ye ar history, the school's prestige, and its influential alumni network....

"In sum, Virginia's remedy does not fix the constitutional violation; the State has shown no 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for withholding from women qualified for the experience premier training of the kind VMI affords."
Click to expand...


Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity.
Click to expand...
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top