John G. Roberts Hates Women

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MrFun


Wasn't it terrible the way the federal government intervened to end legal segregation in the 60s?

No. However, completely missing the point is.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jaguar

No. However, completely missing the point is.

I saw his point, and it was a very dull one.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't recall seeing anywhere that the legislation he was arguing against required establishing any such thing.

That's the necessary and logical conclusion.

How are you going to mandate this, without such an organization (or forcing the courts to deal with it)?

[Boris Godunov]

The court route was my understanding. Isn't that how unfair employment practices are dealt with now?

[Last Conformist]

Considering that even the Mesozoic wasteland known as the USA has income tax, presumably the state already knows who pays whom what.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not the point. The point is, how do you determine exactly what constitutes "equal work"?

[Bosh]

Wait a second here people. The exact thing that Robert was opposing were attempts to mandate that jobs of "equal worth" were paid equally NOT that women shouldn't be paid the same for doing the exact same job.

You see at that time some people were realizing that women were generally paid less because they're concentrated in different industries and they wanted to fix that by trying to get people to give equal pay to jobs of subjectively-defined "equal worth" so that women would make as much as men.

The article takes things out of context horrifically.

[Kuciwalker]

Ouch, that's even worse than I thought it was.

Major props to Roberts for not being insane

[Sava]

hating women

[Kuciwalker]

Really, I don't see what the fuss over this guy is. From what I can see, he's basically as neutral a candidate as possible, who just cares about the law, and he seems to be a decent judge. The Dems should just accept him. I mean, if they shoot down this guy, do they think they're going to actually get someone who's a lefty?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Bosh
You see at that time some people were realizing that women were generally paid less because they're concentrated in different industries and they wanted to fix that by trying to get people to give equal pay to jobs of subjectively-defined "equal worth" so that women would make as much as men.

I don't see how that would be enforceable even if there was some big agency created to handle it.

[Kuciwalker]

That's why it's retarded.

[Boris Godunov]

Gee, thanks for that clarification.

[Ben Kenobi]

You see at that time some people were realizing that women were generally paid less because they're concentrated in different industries and they wanted to fix that by trying to get people to give equal pay to jobs of subjectively-defined "equal worth" so that women would make as much as men.

That's the main problem here. The issue isn't, equal pay for equal work, the issue is whether the market ought to determine how much each profession pays, or whether the state ought to decide through an arbitrary formula.

I mean, if we believe that women ought to be compensated equally to men, regardless of their profession, then why should anyone be paid differently for the different jobs that they do? Why not pay everyone the same amount?

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Really, I don't see what the fuss over this guy is. From what I can see, he's basically as neutral a candidate as possible, who just cares about the law, and he seems to be a decent judge. The Dems should just accept him. I mean, if they shoot down this guy, do they think they're going to actually get someone who's a lefty?

The dems want more documents to shift through in order to find some gotcha passages, they obviously haven't found any yet if they're resorting to BS like in this linked article. The Bushies are stonewalling the dems on the documents.