Flutterby™! : women's eroding rights 2005-11-09 21:35:00.872502+00

women's eroding rights

2005-11-09 21:35:00.872502+00 by Dan Lyke 6 comments

Right to Wife -Why does Judge Alito treat women like girls? (Especially in light of my comments on Prop 73).

And an LA Times article about tens of thousands of people having trouble registering to vote under Arizona's new requirement that you prove U.S. citizenship:

In Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, more than 10,000 people trying to register have been rejected for being unable to prove their citizenship. Yvonne Reed, a spokeswoman for the recorder's office, said Friday that most probably are U.S. citizens whose married names differ from their birth certificates or who have lost documentation.

So if you're a woman, and you feel that you must get married, don't take your husband's name lest you be disenfranchised from the political process.

(both stolen from Medley's sidebar)

Even worse - when you both change your name. No one believes that a man would change his name when he gets married. Immediate red-flags. Suspicion all around...

#Comment Re: Alito treats women as though they were girls. made: 2005-11-10 01:35:25.558948+00 by: m

And, he thinks that having 10 year old girls strip searched by four male cops is reasonable. Even when they clearly have no warrant naming the girl to be siezed or searched. He also approves of their mothers being strip searched without a valid warrant as well. Guess that provides his support for age equality. Personally, I would call it a child molestation and a sexual molestation.

He is vehement advocate of the police state, and he doesn't treat the male of the species any better with the exception of their nonexistant uteri. If males bore children, he would treat all non Bush class persons the the same.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-11-10 06:33:26.868809+00 by: topspin [edit history]

m, the "10 year old strip searched" case DID NOT involve male officers searching women. Read the case and you find a female "meter officer" carried out the search of the females and Alito said:

That he thought the warrant gave the officers the right to search the occupants of the house is the terrible issue here and using inflammatory misrepresentations is hardly helpful in pointing out the real problems with Alito.

Inflammatory misrepresentations seem to be the norm at the moment. If Alito were pro-choice, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him called "in favor of killing babies."

Regarding treating women like girls, I think there are some serious questions that still need to be answered about the rights and responsibilities of (potential) fathers. If I knock some gal up because I'm careless (or worse, because she lies about having "taken care of things"), I could be on the hook for 18 years of child support. But as a man, I have no say at all over whether she aborts the baby or not. Or if she gives birth, I could end up with a child I have no right to see, and still end up paying for a couple decades.

Hell, all of "abortion politics" are messed up enough right now that it amazes me whenever a politician makes any clear statement either way.

#Comment Re:Error retracted made: 2005-11-10 14:21:20.478401+00 by: m

Thank you for the case reference. Sorry, the account I read had four male officers doing the search. But as I noted, the girl was not named in the warrant, neither was the mother. The officers certainly should not have thought they had such a right. They just thought they could get away with it. The warrant did not include the occupants of the house, and according to the majority, no reasonable reading of the warrant would include the wife and child. Without the right to search, such a search is a molestation. Perhaps not legally a child or sexual molestation, but one with consequences for the victims.

The problem here is twofold. First, the police knowingly or negligently trespassed beyond the permissions provided by the court. It is the constant overarching pressure, on the part of law enforcement to stretch their powers, that mandates such a jealous protection. Secondly and of greatest concern, Alito's willingness, or possibly eagerness, to efface the protections of the 4th.

Clearly, IANAL, and do not understand legal thought from a legal viewpoint. But rather as a citizen who is profoundly concerned with the constant erosion of personal freedoms, and the increasing power of the state. But I do know that legal theories, like theological arguments, can lead to very strange and counter-rational results. These range from so called "free speech zones", the DEA controlling the prescriptions of oncologists, to the requirement of "papers" for travel. Truly disturbing. While law may be a black box to the layman, it must be measured by what it produces, and the metrics are troublesome.

The police had used an affidavit to obtain the search warrant which said: "the search should also include all occupants of the residence...." but the warrant itself did not specify "all occupants."

What turns my opinion that this was oversight rather than an intent by the police or Alito to stretch the 4th amendment outta shape is a small sentence in the case.

"Armed with the warrant, Task Force police went to the John Doe house to carry the search. Evidently they anticipated encountering females because they enlisted a female traffic meter patrol officer to be available if necessary to assist in the search."
[emphasis mine]

Clearly, the officers planned ahead in the intent to search everyone in the house and didn't see this as a good opportunity to search willy-nilly. I see no intent to violate rights here, only sloppy warrant writing. Alito's dissent here argues that a commonsense reading of the documents involved and the behavior of the officers suggests there was no intent to violate rights.... and I agree. I don't know enough about "qualified immunity" to hazard whether he's legally correct or incorrect, but he certainly has a good common sense argument in the case.