TerminalEchoes: [img.photobucket.com image 600x402]
johnnyrocket: Listening to the banter on the Prop 8 case today, it's clearer than ever that justices do not decide cases on law or president, or rules or good judgement, they decide cases on pure prejudice, ideology, and well, complete BS.Especially at the SCOTUS level, since they know no one can overrule them.
Lando Lincoln: Slutter McGee: Funny how Scalia a few hours ago saved you liberals the right to not have your houses sniffed by drug dogs.Wow. He saved just liberals from getting their houses searched? I don't think that's very constitutional.
Last Man on Earth: austerity101: Car_Ramrod: Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.So are gender-specific bathrooms, though. Why aren't those considered separate but equal?Not sure if trolling, but what the hell, I'll bite. A distinction being constitutionally protected, like race or gender, doesn't mean that the state can't make any distinction at all, it just means that the rule has to survive a certain level of scrutiny. Gender discrimination has "heightened scrutiny," which means that the state has to prove what's termed a "substantial government interest" in order to make the law acceptable. Consider height and weight requirements to work as a firefighter: Yes, the requirements have a discriminatory effect, since far more women won't meet those requirements than men. However, there are definite job requirements involved with firefighting that justify the prerequisite, and thus the discriminatory effect.Different bathrooms for different genders meet that "substantial interest" heading, due to issues of privacy, harassment risks, etc. For that matter, you very likely won't be charged with a crime of any sort for taking a piss in the wrong bathroom, just for any untoward conduct you perform while in there, so someone is unlikely to have any standing to challenge bathrooms. Before you ask, no you can't mandate that gay men use the women's room or lesbians the men's room, because having a sexuality check before using the bathroom would represent a fairly massive privacy intrusion.
Gyrfalcon: Wooly Bully: skilbride: I'm just going to butt in here and say that majority of what you people hear about Scalia is fear mongering from the leftThere's no way you could know that.Every single lawyer I've talked to has made withering criticisms of Scalia. And these people are not "leftists".Most of the ones I know think Scalia is brilliant but wrong. He is a genius at interpreting the law to mean exactly what he wants it to mean, which takes a good deal of intelligence and a very keen knowledge of the Constitution and related documents. My Con Law professor used one of his dissents to show us how Scalia makes up his mind about a case first and then works backward to find the citations he needs to buttress his opinions.If Scalia wasn't so mean-minded, he could easily be the conservative and originalist version of Erwin Chemerinsky and be quite respected in his field, I think. Too bad he's such a jerk.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Apr 25 2017 17:52:47
Runtime: 0.447 sec (446 ms)