Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
A Moderate Republican
John Roberts is going to be easily confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Roberts nomination is seen as a slam-dunk, because Roberts is considered moderate. He has not harbored some of the radical stances of other Republican judges (i.e., Janice "Government is Slavery" Brown and Emilio "Pro-Rape" Garza).
So lets take a look at what Roberts believes, which will allow us to understand what a moderate Republican looks like. 1) John Roberts is NOT SURE "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." 2) He has denied existence of a gender gap. 3) Also, Roberts asserted that the Equal Pay Act, which requires men get the same pay if they do the same work, is 'radical'.
Summary of Roberts and women's rights: Stay in the kitchen woman! Now consider this, again: by most accounts, John Roberts is considered a moderate/mainstream Republican jurist. That says all we need to know about where the Republicans stand on women's rights.
So lets take a look at what Roberts believes, which will allow us to understand what a moderate Republican looks like. 1) John Roberts is NOT SURE "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." 2) He has denied existence of a gender gap. 3) Also, Roberts asserted that the Equal Pay Act, which requires men get the same pay if they do the same work, is 'radical'.Summary of Roberts and women's rights: Stay in the kitchen woman! Now consider this, again: by most accounts, John Roberts is considered a moderate/mainstream Republican jurist. That says all we need to know about where the Republicans stand on women's rights.
By Chuck - 9/27/2005
12 Comments:
These were responses framed by questions from Feingold and Shumer. He married a woman who was and still a lawyer. No validity to these comments at all. Moderate doesn not equal democrat or pro choice. He highlighted his desire to limit governmental interference (IOW the police) with the 4th's right to privacy. If this one small little exchange of questions regarding woman is all you got on him, that's pretty good. He deserves every vote. How can a nut like Ginsburg who wants to legalize prostitution the name of a woman's right to earn a living get 98 votes and Roberts not. Roberts defines the majority of Republicans and their views very well in this country.
Note (unrelated): I listened to Jerry Springer for the last time today. I am so sick of the utter hypocracy. How can a guy who made his millions on embarrassing the lower socio-economic class (in tv show) comment on the treatment of this same group of people today. And if you think his show is fine, look at the re-runs, he just mocks these poor people demanding yet another chant of "Jerry!" from the audience. Fine, he can have his disgusting show in today's world considering this is the time of evolving standards of decencey, but he has no right to comment on how the government has failed and not done enough for these people in the wake of a natural disaster (maybe they did, not the point). He should keep his opinions to himself as I'm sure he does his millions. Also, I used to laugh at his show like everyone else. After seeing it again the other day, I was left pondering how I ever did.
1) you are ignoring the FACT that he made these statements about women.
2) maybe prostitution should be legal. (as a matter of fact, it is in Nevada, so I don't think it makes you a nut)
3) Springer is great.
I too, love to hate these hollow, sesame-street slogans; talk about appealing to the lowest common denominator! The only one more ridiculous than "W stands for women" is "These colors don’t run."
All I'll say about Roberts is that it could've been so much worse (and I'm really surprised it wasn't).
You guys are humorless. And are you sure more lawyers contributes to the common good. At least homemakers usually produce value.
And please tell me how these equal pay laws will work. Is some committee going to evaluate every single job and determine what the pay should be. Is it so outrageous to leave it to free people to work out wages among themselves (i.e. free markets, capitalism)?
If calling people mysoginistic, racist, greedy, and evil satisfy your thirst for polital dialogue and reasoning, then good for you. Well done. And here's a good debate point if you ever get in a jam:
"John Roberts hates women."
Sorry, I messed that one up. It was supposed to be "John Roberts doesn't care about women," like what Kanye said. Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
Hey Scott, are you living in this society? Have you opened a newspaper in the last 20 years? The Equal Pay law HAS WORKED, as the pay disparity has been dramatically slashed since it was passed.
Yes, I have been living in society. And yes, I wrote a bit ignorantly about the law in question.
But let's get down to the fundamental questions here.
If I'm woking at a job, and I feel someone less skilled and hard-working is making more than me, be it man or woman, I've got a few options. I can ask for a raise. I can find another job (which would also punish and teach a lesson to the company for arbitarily paying its employees). Or maybe I could start my own company.
If i didn't care about iniating force, there are a couple other options.
I could hold a gun to my boss's head and tell him to either pay me as much as the other employee in question just give me a big lump sum of money. If he resists paying I can put him in some sort of dungeon or jail, and if he resists going to said dungeon or jail, I can shoot him.
Or I can file a complaint or lawsuit and let the government do what I just described.
Like it or not, a lot of us are conservatives and libertarians because we hate bullies, be it an individual, a group of people, or a government.
Even if the bully's motivations are good (ending discrimination), it doesn't make his actions any less brute, oppressive, or ant-freedom. You'd probably make the same statement about pro-lifers.
So is goverment-enforced equality of outcome (I'm not speaking of equality before the law, which neither side is against) more important than freedom? I don't think so.
Prostitution should be legal. It's a restriction of the rights of consenting adults to do something that, if it were properly regulated, would probably be reasonably safe. As it is, prostitution is made more dangerous both for the prostitute and the prostitutee. And the government spends valuable resources trying to keep it illegal and failing, when they could be earning tax dollars by legalizing it and keeping it well-regulated. I know this isn't the point of the original post, but it's an issue that I feel very strongly about. And not because I'd be frequenting said prostitutes on the weekends. And on Thursdays. And before work on Mondays. That's just a coincidence.
Oh, and can we please never, ever talk again about how "our age is the least moral age in history" and the "standards of decency are going lower and lower"? Every generation has said that for as long there have been generations. And the world, for the most part, is continually becoming a better and better place.
Now, as for the subject of Roberts, I do agree that those statements are pretty lame. There's obviously a gender gap. And there shouldn't be. But, I would like to take issue with the big about encouraging homemakers to become lawyers. Of course homemakers should be able to become lawyers if they want to be, but has it gotten to the point yet where societal pressures have swung too far in the direction of pushing women into careers that they don't really want to be in? Honestly, is there anything wrong with being a homemaker? Isn't that really what everyone wants in life? To be able to sit at home all day? I don't know about you, but if I had a wife who said "Honey, why don't you stay home and take care of the kids?" I'd jump at the chance. Yes, I am aware that it is hard work. Probably harder work than a "real job." But spending time with your children? And watching Jerry Springer? How could you say no!?
Scott, I don't mean to dismiss your total argument, but here I go:
We live in a sexist society. Laws requiring equal pay and affirmative action for gender are needed to grant women justice in the long term and short term.
As this site constantly discusses, you must strike a balance with free market and social justice. We don't live in a total free market society.
Steve, I am with you on prostitution.
As far as societal pressures swinging: yes, they may be shifting, but they have not gone that far.
and no, there is nothing wrong iwth homemaker. personally, sign me up
Whether or not discrimination exists is irrelevent. It will always exist.
Basically, if I pay a a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman to do the same job at the same skill level, but I pay the man $100/hr. and the woman $2/hr, it is absolutely none of your business. We are consenting adults.
Which is why I would agree with you on prostitution, though I'm not sure I'd call it a Constitutional right. But the reason prositution should be legal is the same reason it's none of your business what deal an employee and employer set up between themselves. In both cases, it is consenting adults agreeing on a trade of money for services.
Anyone who makes the argument that Justice Roberts is for women's rights and then adds that prostitution should be legal, doesn't understand women's rights and how viewing them as objects (for sex) is part of the problem. This adds to our distorted view of women and trickles into the workplace. I am glad you guys arn't legistlatures.
Post a Comment
<< Home