@josie I didn’t put you in that category. If you feel the shoe fits, it’s your call.
@KNOWITALL I’m sure you are right the South is changing. I grew up there, and much has improved since those days 60 years or more ago. Change comes slowly there, but it does come.
@elbanditoroso It excluded everyone but white, landowning gentry when it was written. I’d guess deep down Scalia would say it still should do so, because that means he’s in and most Americans are out.
@Blondesjon I indeed do see that we often ignore the Constitution, but that doesn’t make me wish to toss it on the trash heap. Are you suggesting that we should? I certainly have never advocated that. I stand for just the opposite, in fact. We should return to the Constitution, and where it is lacking in today’s world, we should follow the proper procedure to amend it.
@glacial Glad you pointed that out.
@rojo She’s probably right about that, but by the same token it would guarantee the Coultergeist would never become president. Might be worth the price. :-)
@Linda_Owl If you listen to the video clip, that comes through loud and clear in their own patriarchal words.
@filmfann Yes, that is the ERA I’m referring to. There is the fact that women still make $0.77 for each $1.00 men earn for the same job. Now, many women are the sole source of income for their family, so the impact of inequality is far greater than it was in 1982.
No, it shouldn’t take a Constitutional Amendment. The existing Constitution says that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. But when that comes before the likes of Scalia, they have difficulty with reading comprehension. Instead, they parse through a document that exists only in their minds. So how specific do you have to get before the SCOTUS Con Men’s hand waving isn’t enough to make the language of the Constitution disappear right before our eyes?