The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Oh Scalia...

 

Women Do Not Have Constitutional Protection From Discrimination

If the 14th amendment does not give equal protection under the law to women because that was not the original intent of that amendment, then why does the 14th amendment give equal protection under the law to corporations?

[Balta1701]

It will cost approximately $1 million in taxpayer dollars for the Republicans to read the Constitution aloud on the floor of the House.

[iamshack]

If the 14th amendment does not give equal protection under the law to women because that was not the original intent of that amendment, then why does the 14th amendment give equal protection under the law to corporations?

See, this is where you get into trouble by trying to apply things written in the Constitution to more current or modern events, developments, thoughts, philosophies, etc. Yes, you can usually find a way to tie in the spirit of the Constitution to cover the ever-expanding list of freedoms and persons and everything that comes along with social and cultural development as societies and cultures mature. But eventually, a few years pass, and something else happens that calls into question these ideas, and scholars or judges go back and analyze the letter of the law and discover, why, low and behold, it was never in the letter of the law to begin with! Why have we been applying this Amendment to such and such a group this entire time?

 

I really believe you have to allow the legislators to do their job, and that is where I agree with Scalia. Let's face it, while the Constitution is an amazing, beautiful, thought-provoking and groundbreaking document, perhaps decades ahead of its time, it has been drafted and amended by men who had no way of anticipating the rapidly evolving and changing world in which we live in now. It needs to continue to live on in spirit, but we can't look for, or try to stretch it to mean or intend things it simply never did. That's what our legislators our here for now. This is why we elect them and pay them.

[Balta1701]

See, this is where you get into trouble by trying to apply things written in the Constitution to more current or modern events, developments, thoughts, philosophies, etc. Yes, you can usually find a way to tie in the spirit of the Constitution to cover the ever-expanding list of freedoms and persons and everything that comes along with social and cultural development as societies and cultures mature. But eventually, a few years pass, and something else happens that calls into question these ideas, and scholars or judges go back and analyze the letter of the law and discover, why, low and behold, it was never in the letter of the law to begin with! Why have we been applying this Amendment to such and such a group this entire time?

 

I really believe you have to allow the legislators to do their job, and that is where I agree with Scalia. Let's face it, while the Constitution is an amazing, beautiful, thought-provoking and groundbreaking document, perhaps decades ahead of its time, it has been drafted and amended by men who had no way of anticipating the rapidly evolving and changing world in which we live in now. It needs to continue to live on in spirit, but we can't look for, or try to stretch it to mean or intend things it simply never did. That's what our legislators our here for now. This is why we elect them and pay them.

You realize that the whole reason why I brought that up is that Scalia, along with the other 4 Conservatives on the court, use the fact that Court has decided that corporations have more rights than people (or, in Scalia's case, women), and they used that decision to overturn a century of actions of Congress and decisions by previous Courts?

[Jenksismyhero]

You realize that the whole reason why I brought that up is that Scalia, along with the other 4 Conservatives on the court, use the fact that Court has decided that corporations have more rights than people (or, in Scalia's case, women), and they used that decision to overturn a century of actions of Congress and decisions by previous Courts?

 

Actually, the answer is pretty simple, and he's being consistent. From his "I hate women and they should all become my slaves" answer:

 

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it.

 

The key is what the Court was asked to decide. Does the 1st Amendment limit free speech protections to people only, and does the 14th Amendment prohibit discrimination against women specifically. His answer is the same to both - the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other, so judges shouldn't just make something up to say that it does. If that's what our society wants, pass a law that provides for that.

 

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

. His answer is the same to both - the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other, so judges shouldn't just make something up to say that it does. If that's what our society wants, pass a law that provides for that.

 

But that's not his answer. Scalia said the 1A is not limited to people only. That's why he voted the way he did in Citizens United - to overturn a law that was passed.

 

That being said, I'm not sure he's being inconsistent here.

[Rex Kickass]

So in the attempt to be the "Constitutional Congress" that angry voters sent to Washington, the House had the constitution read (minus all the nasty mentions of things like slavery and who constitutes what percentage of the person) today. And then to show how serious the new Republican led Congress is about the constitution, nobody showed up to the reading.

 

 

Oh and our new Constitutionalist speaker of the house? Picked the time when the constitution was being read to hold his press conference. So I guess we can look at it this way, according to the new Republican led House, its important that Congress reads the constitution aloud. It's just not important any Congressman actually listens to it.

[lostfan]

So you're saying the ticket will wind up being Palin/Bachmann?

I'd like to see Palin and Bachmann fight for nomination the way Hillary and Obama did. It would be hilarious, and it'd guarantee Obama a 2nd term.

[bmags]

So in the attempt to be the "Constitutional Congress" that angry voters sent to Washington, the House had the constitution read (minus all the nasty mentions of things like slavery and who constitutes what percentage of the person) today. And then to show how serious the new Republican led Congress is about the constitution, nobody showed up to the reading.

 

 

Oh and our new Constitutionalist speaker of the house? Picked the time when the constitution was being read to hold his press conference. So I guess we can look at it this way, according to the new Republican led House, its important that Congress reads the constitution aloud. It's just not important any Congressman actually listens to it.

 

It's like saying most of their gripes were symbolic and not substantive?!

[Balta1701]

This is a winner.

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

 

SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?

 

O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.

[StrangeSox]

Bullet-proof logic from Mr. O'Reilly.

 

f***ing Magnets, how do they work?!

[BigSqwert]

Bullet-proof logic from Mr. O'Reilly.

 

f***ing Magnets, how do they work?!

 

And why aren't you confirmed to be at the drinking event tomorrow???

Edited January 6, 2011 by BigSqwert

[KipWellsFan]

Gene Sperling, and Bill Daley. Obvious marxists, and clear signs that Obama is radically left of Bill Clinton. Obama's dad was an anti-colonialist dontchaknow!

Edited January 6, 2011 by KipWellsFan

[StrangeSox]

 

And why aren't you confirmed to be at the drinking event tomorrow???

 

I'll probably be out of the state for work.

[BigSqwert]

Bah humbug

[lostfan]

This is a winner.

Sigh. Very basic scientific facts I learned in about the 4th grade.

[Balta1701]

This is kinda fun again.

Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.

 

The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in, but watched it on television from the Capitol Visitors Center.

[BigSqwert]

My favorite Ted Williams related tweet today:

 

The GOP's lesson from the heartwarming Ted Williams story will be that more Americans should be homeless.

[Rex Kickass]

NJ Congressman Frank Pallone interrupted in reading the constitution by a birther in the gallery.

 

http://blogs.app.com/capitolquickies/2011/...on-house-floor/

 

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J, was interrupted today while reading the Constitution on the House floor by a woman who began shouting at him.

 

Pallone, taking part in an event in which House members read through the entire Constitution, had just come to the part in Article II, Section 1 where the document states that no one but a “natural-born citizen” can be president of the United States when the birther shouted out, “Except Obama, except Obama. Help us Jesus,” according to the Politico.

 

A startled Pallone stopped reading and looked up. The woman, identified by Politico as a “birther,” was escorted out of the gallery by police and arrested, the Politico said. Birthers are people who believe that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

 

The chair, identified by the Associated Press as Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, banged his gavel and reminded those in the gallery that they were guests and needed to be quiet. Simpson then turned to Pallone and, inviting him to continue reading, said, “The gentleman from Virginia.”

 

Pallone paused and looked around.

 

Simpson spoke and gestured again: “The gentleman from New Jersey.”

[Rex Kickass]

More Congressional Day 1 Shenanigans.

 

The Congressman across the river from me (Mike Fitzpatrick, R-PA) missed his very first swearing in ceremony because he was gladhanding with supporters at a fundraiser in the Capitol. He watched on TV with his hand raised instead, and then went and voted in the House. They were all welcomed by Congressman Sessions, head of the GOP Congressional Fundraising arm.

 

Turns out, that the reason he missed it might have been an illegal act. You're forbidden to use the Capitol Visitor Center for any campaign fundraising activity. Yet the supporters there paid to come to watch the swearing in. And they paid the campaign to do it.

 

House ethics rules forbid fundraising in the Capitol.

 

The Bucks County Courier Times said that roughly 500 Fitzpatrick supporters were on hand at the gathering. Fitzpatrick's campaign had solicited contributions for a bus trip to the Capitol and "Mike Fitzpatrick's Swearing In Celebration."

 

Sessions is head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, responsible for fundraising for GOP candidates.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/t...t_n_805423.html

 

As to whether or not this should be considered a fundraiser may be up for debate. The price for entrance was approximately $30 per person and was to "pay for transportation" according to the new Congressman. But money was collected by the campaign for access to the Congressman in Washington D.C. Just because you don't make money doesn't make it a fundraiser. Some of them end up losing money too.

 

I just find it pretty funny is all.

[StrangeSox]

It's already a clown show. Have you seen Boehner's Gallagher-sized gavel?

[Rex Kickass]

It's already a clown show. Have you seen Boehner's Gallagher-sized gavel?

 

I kinda wanted to photoshop a watermelon under it actually.

[StrangeSox]

I kinda wanted to photoshop a watermelon under it actually.

 

Jon Stewart beat you to it last night.

[Rex Kickass]

Jon Stewart beat you to it last night.

 

Curses! Foiled again!

[StrangeSox]

 

 

Compensating?