News story: here
Oral argument transcript: here. (See pages 27-33 especially)
Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OUR MISSION
Followers
Liberty Bell
AVfM Donations
Reforming the justice system
Defending rights in higher education
False Rape Activist Paul Elam
Links: Information About False Rape Claims
- ● RUSSLYN ALI: 'Dear Colleague letter (lowered standard of proof on campus for sex charges, etc.)
- -- Criticisms of 'Dear Colleague' letter
- ● ROY F. BAUMEISTER: Is There Anything Good About Men?
- ●EMILY BAZELON and RACHEL LARIMORE: How often do women falsely cry rape?
- ● CYNTHIA BELL: Rape should be tough to prove
- ●ROY BLACK: Why we should protect those accused of rape
- ●CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY DATA ANALYSIS CUTTING TOOL
- ● PROF. ALAN DERSHOWITZ
- --The trouble with rape prosecutions
- --When the rape rap is phoney
- ●SUSAN ESTRICH: Discussing the Al Gore rape case
- ●FATHERS AND FAMILIES WEB SITE
- ●ZACHARY FOWLE: Accused often guilty until proven innocent
- ●EDWARD GREER: The truth behind legal dominance feminism's 'two percent false rape claim' figure (debunks two percent canard)
- ●BRUCE GROSS: False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice (overview of false rape studies)
- ●AYA GRUBER: Law professor says feminists should abandon tough rape laws and the war on crime
- ●STEPHANIE GUTTMANN: How date rape 'education' fosters confusion, undermines personal responsibility, and trivializes sexual violence
- ●PIERCE HARLAN and E. STEVEN BERKIMER: Don't forget victims of false rape accusations
- ●CHAD HERMANN
- --Men are From Wilkinsburg, Women are From Collier
- --One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven
- --The lessons of Michael Haywood
- ●AMANDA HESS: False rape claims and rape culture
- ●SANDY HINGSTON: The new rules of college sex
- ●JOANNE JACOBS: Rape and the bathroom wall
- ●KC JOHNSON: Durham-in-Wonderland (the Duke Lacrosse blog)
- ●KRISTIN JONES: A curious anomaly at UC Davis
- ●EUGENE J. KANIN: False rape reports
- ● RICHARD KLEIN: An Analysis of of Thirty-Five Years of Rape Reform: a Frustrating Search For Fundamental Fairness
- ●KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA (outlawed death penalty for child rape due, inter alia, to possibility of false claims)
- ●KOSS REPORT
- ●JIM KOURI: Duke rape case all too common
- ●JESSICA LACK: Playing the victim is overplayed
- ●JOHN LEO: A rape accusation at Brown
- ●PROF. ALAN LEVY: Political correctness is alive and well on college campuses
- ●CARRIE L. LUKAS: One in four? Rape myths do injustice, too
- ●HEATHER MacDONALD: Campus rape myth
- ●MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Recommendation for dismissal of Strauss-Kahn case
- ●CHARLES P. McDOWELL: 'False Alligators' and fuzzy data: a new look at crime analysis
- ●WENDY McELROY
- --Continuing to defame the 'Duke 3' as rapists
- --Duke rape case raises issue of protecting identity of accused
- --False rape charges hurt real victims
- --Rape scandal turns sympathy into skepticism
- --Treat accused, accuser alike
- ●MSNBC REPORT: FALSE ALLEGATION THWARTED BY POLICE CAMERA
- ●NATIONAL COALITION FOR MEN
- --False accusations
- ●NCHERM: THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION RISK MANAGEMENT
- ●SARAH OVERSTREET: Coercion doesn't make sex a crime
- ●DR. TARA J. PALMATIER: Shrink4Men
- ●KATHLEEN PARKER: Picking up after the Duke debacle
- ●RADAR: Respecting accuracy in domestic abuse reporting
- ●RAINN: Reducing risk of sexual assault
- ●RAPE INVESTIGATION HANDBOOK: False claim red flags
- ●ANNA RITTGERS: Sometimes Women Lie About Rape
- ●KATIE ROPHIE: Date rape's other victim
- ●THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE: Dedicated to the defense of liberty and human rights
- ●SCIENCE DAILY: Women Have Not Adapted To Casual Sex, Research Shows
- ●SLATE DOUBLEX GABFEST: Jamie Leigh Jones and other high profile rape cases
- ●CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS
- --In making campuses safe for women, a travesty of justice for men
- --Researching the 'rape culture' of America
- ●JONNA M. SPILBOR: What If Kobe Bryant Has Been Falsely Accused? Why the Law of Acquaintance and Date Rape Should Seriously Penalize False Reports
- ●STATE PENALTIES FOR FALSE REPORTING
- ●STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR RAPE
- --National Conference for State Legislatures
- -- Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)
- ●STERN REVIEW (UK)
- ●SHAUN WEBB: A Motion for Innocence
- ●LAUREN WEEDMAN: I lied about being raped
- ●TOY SOLDIERS WEB SITE
- ●NAOMI WOLF
- --A tale of two rape charges
- --Why is rape different?
- ●CATHY YOUNG
- --Last cry for 'rape crisis' feminism?
- --The noble lie, feminist style
- --Sexual assault on campus--is it exaggerated?
- --The unique power of crying rape
- --Who says women never lie about rape?
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Search This Blog
Become a fan of FRS on Facebook
Buy This Book
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Revolver Maps
Flag Counter
8 comments:
Scalia made me laugh out loud -- he doesn't put up with the bullshit.
Oh man, I think I found a gem:
(Kennedy)
"Help me, if you can, with this. Let's suppose that experts' testimony, sociologists and so forth, establish that in industry generally and in retail industry generally, women still are discriminated against by a mathematical factor of X. You have a company that has a very specific policy against discrimination, and you look at the way their
employees are treated, and you find a disparity by that same mathematical factor X, does that give you a cause of action?"
(Alito)
"So, you have the company that is absolutely typical of the entire American workforce, and let's say every single -- there weren't Alderson Reporting Company Official - Subject to Final Review
any variations. Every single company had exactly the same profile. Then you would say every single company is in violation of Title VII?"
(Sellers - for the Women)
"It -- that could very well be
the case."
So basically, their argument would open up pretty much every company in the country to class action discrimination lawsuits on behalf of women.
Scalia is a good man.
I can't believe it, but I'm pulling for Wal-Mart in this case. We have to stop the advance of female entitlement,and in order to do that, SOMEBODY has to win one of these.
Might as well be Wal-Mart.
May the ghost of Sam Walton smile down on his corporate juggernaut's legal machinery and grant strength to the pimp hand of Justice Scalia in smacking down this frivolous bullshit with extreme prejudice.
So the feminuts start with the assumption that the reason women are 'underrepresented' as managers is because of discrimination, not lack of ability or ambition.
Then, by referring to any claim that is contrary to this assumption as 'stereotyping,' they offer as evidence in support of this baseless assumption THE MERE FACT THAT ANYONE HAS DISAGREED WITH IT.
In other words:
I- I assume that all dogs are blue. What else could they be? Red?
II- You just claimed that the dogs are red, not blue. Bigot!
III- Therefore, all dogs are blue.
Logic. We need it.
They'll never have it.
This case is ridiculous on so many different levels:
-There is no policy of discrimination. If anything, women have it better as a result of threats of lawsuits. Tech Crunch Senior Editor Michael Arrington explains on women in tech, "I’m going to tell it like it is. And what it is is this: statistically speaking women have a huge advantage as entrepreneurs, because the press is dying to write about them, and venture capitalists are dying to fund them. Just so no one will point the accusing finger of discrimination at them."
-Furthermore, outlawing sex discrimination has silly consequences. Does anyone go to Hooters for a male waiter? Would a woman join the Chippendales? I imagine that it's easier to become a female bartender (high-paying, high-tip job) than a male bartender. Also, females get more tips than men that do not go reported in wages. Should we start counting those tips as part of income and make a pay discrimination case? No, it's really silly.
-Finally, I'll make my most controversial point. Discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or any other factor should be allowed for private companies. The truth is that Walmart is in a highly competitive industry; if they are hiring less competitive workers on the basis of illogical discrimination then they will go out of business when productivity goes down and their costs go up. Capitalism punishes discrimination that is not smart. But if in fact the discrimination is smart, if Ambercrombie&Fitch figures out that hiring attractive young women - as opposed to men - will sell more clothing than we should not try to stop them. If it turns out men exert more effort going after jobs and vice versa for women, then we should not try to prevent the natural forces of the market and human nature. Both men and women have competitive advantages. And if it turns out that certain corporate discriminations lead to unfair and stupid decisions being made, that corporation will go out of business while other companies avoid making those mistakes.
-Finally, I'll make my most controversial point. Discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or any other factor should be allowed for private companies. The truth is that Walmart is in a highly competitive industry; if they are hiring less competitive workers on the basis of illogical discrimination then they will go out of business when productivity goes down and their costs go up.
***
I disagree, especially when it comes to racial discrimination. Although you absolutely right that the market has built-in mechanism that punish those who judge workers based on factors other than performance, the issue isn't always as simple as you've suggested.
For example, when racism is as prevalent as it was in the old south, the employer faces pressure not only from customers but also from his other employees not to hire non-whites.
I really don't think that common sense laws against discrimination are a bad thing; they are simply requiring employers to do what is better for business, anyway. A lot of problems were solved by the Civil Rights Act.
However, it's a different story when THE MAJORITY -- women! -- are abusing this process and using the threat of baseless accusations of sexism in order to gain unfair advantages.
For example, when racism is as prevalent as it was in the old south, the employer faces pressure not only from customers but also from his other employees not to hire non-whites.
I really don't think that common sense laws against discrimination are a bad thing; they are simply requiring employers to do what is better for business, anyway. A lot of problems were solved by the Civil Rights Act.
--------
The Civil Rights Act actually caused a lot more problems than you can imagine. Read http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/05/rand-pauls-remarks-about-the-1964-civil-rights-act-brought-forth-lots-of-talk-about-libertarians-and-lunch-counters-but-almos.html and http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/
The truth is that there are some businesses that benefit from having employees of only a certain race. If you are going to a Chinese restaurant, you'd probably prefer to have mostly Chinese staff for the sake of consistency.
If the customer would be more inclined to purchase as the result of a sort of discrimination, then it's in the business' best interest not to discriminate. The reality is that you will no longer find uniform discrimination in the south at every business. So if one business were to discriminate in a manner that were not good for business, then they would lose profits and go out of business. If there happened to be a town were every business discriminated, they'd lose a portion of their population and the town as a whole would suffer that economic loss. On the other hand, it's hard to say if they are better or worse off as they might value the discrimination as the price of such an economic loss.
The only case I can see being made for a law against racial discrimination was the 1960s, but I'd have to look at the historical economic data to see how much of an impact discrimination was having. As it turns out, government interventions to interfere with discrimination in schools and the workplace had unintended consequences:
-http://www.slate.com/id/2257453/
-http://www.jstor.org/pss/2112447
I believe discrimination would have naturally declined in a smoother transition if there had been no government intervention. The Irish, Mexicans, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese were all heavily discriminated against upon immigration to the United States. All of these groups responded by going into unconventional industries. It comes as no surprise to me that over a quarter of United States innovation comes from immigrants; they truly are the entrepreneurs of our nation. The nice thing is that there were not long-lasting tensions against these groups because the government did not intervene. While I can imagine a successful government intervention that is supposed to be for the good of all people, the reality is that government usually gets things wrong and causes more damage.
It's better to let damage be done through natural, unfettered human forces. Imagine if the United States had the worst case scenario occur in the case of discrimination. And that racial discrimination went on and even expanded more to the extent that there'd be separate restaurants for six sets of races. Eventually people would stop immigrating here, and people might even leave the country. When things started moving towards rock bottom, the nation as a whole would learn an unforgettable lesson about discrimination. The reality is that the government imposed on society the social norm that is not ok to have racial preferences. While this is a noble norm to impose, it does not allow people to firsthand figure out why it's a decent norm. And I believe that it has clearly led to more racial tensions in our country.
The bottomline is that the best results will come from freedom and competition even outside traditional markets (countries that have lower taxes compete against countries with higher taxes; states with better public funding for public transit may bring in more tourism cash)
Post a Comment