Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court won't uphold Prop 8, but ... (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then why did you need the 19th Amendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, VClib, koNko

    if the 14th Amendment prohibited discrimination based on gender?  

    •  In my opinion, you shouldn't have needed it (5+ / 0-)

      but people kept on not allowing women to vote, so you did.

      Didn't some early feminist -- Victoria Woodhull, maybe -- make that argument?

      The problem is that the notion that the current interpretation law is and always was correct is a legal fiction.  Decent people would just admit it.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:24:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Scalia cannot admit that (0+ / 0-)

        Because his entire legal theory would then crumble - all you have to do, see, is read the WORDS, and then bust out your dictionary which was current at the time the words were written, and find out what those words mean.  Never mind their intent.  Except for what they intended to mean with their words.  FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAN PUT DOWN THAT CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, ARE YOU MAD?

        Ahem.

        Anyway, if you're a textualist, the text is always right, it's just man that's wrong.  I just realized there's a nice harmony with conservative thought there - conservative philosophy is always right, it's just the conservative politicians who keep implementing it incorrectly.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site