Great Expectations: Women Should Demand Payback for Helping President Obama

... abortion/repro. rights as they pertain to men/fathers. Hmmm... well, I guess it'd depend on who's on the Supreme Court. After all, they get to interpret the Con'n. And they've certainly interpreted it some interesting enough ways in the past, haven't they?

It's always a real joke to hear a member of a hate movement talk about "equal rights."

How would an "Equal Rights Amendement" sit with VAWA? Surely the two are incompatible? If the ERA is passed would that make VAWA unconstitutional? Just an honest question from a non-American reader.

on the detestable 'war on women'.

it really is a subversive thing, this war on women. the most terrible thing is the way all the free welfare stuff has expanded their 'rear' guard action. the free phone w/ minutes has made them able to continually monitor their enemy's (us) actions. the free billion$ for this (vawa) and that have helped create a grand ally in the legal class and the courts. the free schooling for having a baby out of wedlock has been compared to handouts to vet's after the other wars. the one's where men actually died serving their country. affirmative action in all things has enabled them to infiltrate areas like the s.t.e.m. minefields where no smart woman could go before.

no worries though. the war on women will soon be over. the economy will certainly collapse since the c.i.c. single unmarried women love to vote for has no plan to fix it. some say that IS the plan, to destroy us and what we have. who could argue from what we have seen so far?

and then there is the head feminist, hitlery, the one who regularly dodges bullets in bosnia, and subpoenas from congress, just like her c.i.c. she will be the next (2016) big cause the war weary ones will fall into line to vote for in droves. i know we all hope she is successful and wins the war on women, where women actually finally get the same treatment as men.

i know i sure hope that happens, and soon.

Women will never be equal to men. They're over-privileged now, asking for more, and will likely get more, more, more.

The only thing males are getting more of these days is oppression. Witch-Hunting Males is so bad it's been institutionalized and set in concrete. Misandry is so bad major American cities are now symbols of it as shown in Los Misandry at Youtube.

"It's only a problem if it adversely affects women and girls."

The US legal system is not about upholding rights, it's about determining whose interests win out. (Simply this: All have equal rights. So no one has a greater claim of right than anyone else. There is therefore nothing left but the assessment of interests and determining who wins based on whose interests the court feels ought to be served.)

Nymphotropism demands that females' interests supercede males' interests wherever possible. Our legal systems are steeped deeply in nymphotropic thinking. The results of any legal edict clashing with any other where men's and women's interests collide will, all things remaining as they are, necessitate that the women's interests be upheld. In short, count on the US Supreme Court to say it's fine if VAWA protects women but not men despite ERA. They'll find some justification for it. They did the same thing in Dubay v. Wells. Remember, since the SC interprets the Con'n, it doesn't ultimately matter what it says. It matters what the SC says it says. And they're just as nymphotropic as anyone.

I suspected as much, but I had overlooked the Supreme Court's role in that process, which as you say could probably be relied upon to wave VAWA through by simply ruling VAWA would be fine in relation to any ERA. (Doesn't that fact, that the Supreme Court can seemingly interpret the US constitution as it sees, almost render the constitution somewhat moot? The idea is that a written constitution is an objective, unbiased thing, but if it is still ultimately subject to biased, subjective human interpretation...)

And speaking of ERA, does anyone in the US think any proposed ERA could actually be used by MRAs, for example in the determining of prison sentences of males as against females, the role Title IX plays in helping reduce male participation in school sports, or other issues of importance to Mens's Rights? Basically is it possible an ERA could be used to men's advantage?

Thanks for your patience.

Early in the history of the US, the SC under Justice Marshall assumed its role to interpret the US Con'n (see here). The SC ruled this based on the fact that the Con'n designated it as holding the power of the Judiciary and empowered it to establish "inferior Courts" as needed. So lacking any other means of evaluating or interpreting the Con'n itself, it assumed this role. This is known as the principle of judicial review and extends to at least all the criminal courts of the country (possibly other kinds of courts too; I am not sure about this), with the final court of appeal being the SC.

The only way it could have seemingly been stopped from doing this would have been a new amendment to the Con'n saying that was not the case. This is because there was no higher court of appeal to take their decision to. The US states to the best of my knowledge have never tried to amend the Con'n to overturn the SC's ruling assuming for itself the power to interpret the Con'n.

But as for your suggestion that this sort of makes the Con'n a talking piece rather than a potent document in and of itself, well, that's hard to say. The document in and of itself is not powerful. It's a piece of paper. It needs to be read and then someone has to act on it. Who will that be? Who will be empowered to do so? The Con'n never said anything about it. The Con'n did say though that any powers not enumerated in it were reserved to the states or the people or both. But now, how could the power to interpret a federal doc't be left to the states or the people as such? What if Florida saw things about, say, an excise tax, one way, but Alabama another? There'd be no consistency, but both states would have an equal claim of right. Since the matter of the Congress having power to regulate interstate taxes is addressed specifically in the US Con'n, the matter would have to be handled at the federal level by a federal court or the Congress. But what if there is no court high enough in authority to interpret The Commerce Clause as it is called to settle the matter if the losing state kept appealing it? The two states would then be deadlocked and what really is the Congress going to do? Settle each such dispute with another piece of legislation? It would never end!

So really, this is all about making the Con'n practical and workable, generally speaking. It needs something to empower it rather than let it just sit there and have people argue endlessly about it. It needs, in essence, someone to tell everyone to sit down and shut up and "just do it this way!". That's what the SC is for.

Now as for how the SC would handle a claim from an MRA over Equal Protection under the law or ERA? Well, I am pretty sure it would not often go the MRA's way. In fact, your remark that says the SC seems to have the power to just ignore this or that part of the Con'n when it feels like it is well-taken. They have before, and they will most assuredly do so again. Still, overall, it's better to have someone with a final say about things than having a near-constant tumult of argument over every little thing that never gets resolved. Someone has to be the adult in the kindergarten. :)