SCOTUS Strikes Down Law Favoring Unwed Mothers Over Unwed Fathers

[Matty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/13/532674073/high-court-strikes-down-law-favoring-unwed-mothers-over-unwed-fathers

[Mr. Smith]

Excellent news.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Yes, good news indeed.

[TheSaint250]

I can't believe that was a law

[KingSweden]

I can't believe that was a law

I can't believe it took SCOTUS this long to strike this absurdity down. Hoping it was 9-0

[Santander]

Interesting law, considering European nationality is generally understood to be transmitted patrilineally. Or perhaps that is why it was imbalanced in favor of children born to unwed mothers, to prevent statelessness and similar problems? In that case, it would make sense.

In a jus soli state, it is perfectly justified, and arguably necessary, to have restrictive laws regarding citizenship by descent.

[Beet]

"But feminazis only care about women and girls, they hate men!!"

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Unfortunately it was done by making things harder for everyone.

[MarkD]

There is, of course, no clause in the Constitution requiring the federal government to treat everyone equally. What the Supreme Court has been doing, since WWII, is "interpreting" the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as if that clause requires equal treatment of the laws. That "interpretation" is, as Prof. John Hart Ely said in a famous 1980 book, "gibberish both  syntactically and historically." (See "Democracy and Distrust," by Ely, page 32.)
All of the Justices subscribe to this misinterpretation, probably because there aren't any lawyers brave enough to try to argue to the Court that it needs to re-examine this doctrine.

[Beet]

There is, of course, no clause in the Constitution requiring the federal government to treat everyone equally. What the Supreme Court has been doing, since WWII, is "interpreting" the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as if that clause requires equal treatment of the laws. That "interpretation" is, as Prof. John Hart Ely said in a famous 1980 book, "gibberish both  syntactically and historically." (See "Democracy and Distrust," by Ely, page 32.)
All of the Justices subscribe to this misinterpretation, probably because there aren't any lawyers brave enough to try to argue to the Court that it needs to re-examine this doctrine.

People like you are why we need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Of course "pro-lifers who are only pro-life because we are so concerned with the fetus but support equal rights" won't support it.

[TheSaint250]

I can't believe that was a law

I can't believe it took SCOTUS this long to strike this absurdity down. Hoping it was 9-0

I hope so as well

[MarkD]

There is, of course, no clause in the Constitution requiring the federal government to treat everyone equally. What the Supreme Court has been doing, since WWII, is "interpreting" the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as if that clause requires equal treatment of the laws. That "interpretation" is, as Prof. John Hart Ely said in a famous 1980 book, "gibberish both  syntactically and historically." (See "Democracy and Distrust," by Ely, page 32.)
All of the Justices subscribe to this misinterpretation, probably because there aren't any lawyers brave enough to try to argue to the Court that it needs to re-examine this doctrine.

People like you are why we need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Of course "pro-lifers who are only pro-life because we are so concerned with the fetus but support equal rights" won't support it.

Some "pro-lifers" might be afraid that ERA will mean that laws banning abortion will be unconstitutional -- those laws are discriminatory against women. Whether or not all "pro-lifers" feel that way, it's kind of ironic for you to mention a reason why we need to adopt an ERA, even more so as that you're accusing ME of being a reason why we need one. See my signature line? I want an amendment to be adopted that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer. It just so happens that what I've drafted includes the principle of the ERA, and imposes the rule of sexual equality on the federal government too.