|
|
Justice Ginzberg’s 24 Lies Opinion| Survey: Lies or Opinions?| Justice Ginzberg's Background| Syllabus| UVa Speech| Biography| Ginzberg & Gays| Picture| VMI Forum| Dissenting Opinion| Excerpts from Dissenting Opinion| Guestbook| Phyllis Schaffley on VMI Hank Foreman advises us that no Supreme Court justice has been impeached in 200 years of US history. But shouldn’t we understand every nit and detail about how the destruction of VMI was brought about, even IF we can do nothing about it? Isn’t public opinion is so strongly in favor of VMI and single-sex education in general that Justice Ginsberg’s actions and lies must be enshrined in our minds and at the gates of VMI? Maybe some of these are not “lies” but merely “ignorance of the facts”. If so, should she be a Justice? Your assistance in qualifying these lies would be greatly appreciated. Please reply as follows to note your agreement or disagreement that each statement is a lie. A) strongly agree NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT, AND BELIEVE IT IS A LIE, THEN MARK THAT YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A LIE. 1) She states both “no substantial educational value is to be served by an all
men's military academy” and "The VWIL student does not graduate with the
advantage of a VMI degree. Her diploma does not unite her with the legions of VMI
'graduates [who] have distinguished themselves' in military and civilian life. See 976 F.
2d, at 892-893. '[VMI] alumni are exceptionally A) strongly agree 2) the court, just for VMI, switched from “intermediate scrutiny” to
“strict scrutiny”, with the United States asserting both “strict scrutiny
is the correct constitutional standard for evaluating classifications that deny
opportunities to individuals based on their sex” AND “[we state] unequivocally
that the appropriate standard in this case is ‘intermediate scrutiny”. 3) Rather than asking whether “the classification serves important governmental
objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the
achievement of those objectives” the Court changed its precedents and asked only if
VMI was an “exceedingly persuasive justification”. 4) “VMI's implementing methodology is not inherently unsuitable to women” 5) “some women do well under the adversative model” 6) “some women are capable of all of the individual activities required of VMI
cadets and can meet the physical standards VMI now imposes on men." 7) "[t]he State's justification for excluding all women from `citizen soldier'
training for which some are qualified . . . cannot rank as `exceedingly
persuasive'...” 8) "The Court has thus far reserved most stringent judicial scrutiny for
classifications based on race or national origin . . . ," [Justice Scalia notes that
this is both misleading and irresponsible] 9) women [are] a "discrete and insular minorit[y]" unable to employ the
"political processes ordinarily to be relied upon," 10) Virginia's claimed purpose in maintaining VMI as an all male institution--its
asserted interest in promoting diversity of educational options--is not
"genuin[e]," but is a pretext for discriminating against women. 11) “there is no explicit statement in the record `in which the Commonwealth has
expressed itself'‘ concerning [maintenance of] VMI's student body as all male” 12 & 13) `the only explicit [statement] that we have found in the record in which
the Commonwealth has expressed itself with respect to gender distinctions' and
“[t]hat failure itself renders the VMI policy invalid”. 14) "[a] purpose genuinely to advance an array of educational options . . . is not
served" by VMI 15) “it is not possible for "one institution with autonomy, but with no
authority over any other state institution, [to] give effect to a state policy of
diversity among institutions” 16) "[t]hese `findings' restate the opinions of Virginia's expert witnesses,
opinions about typically male or typically female `tendencies.' " [Justice Scalia
notes “[t]he evidence in the case . . . is virtually uncontradicted”] 17) “ Virginia, and the District Court, erred, and ‘misperceived our
precedent,’ by train[ing] their argument on `means' rather than `end'“ 18) "Surely that goal is great enough to accommodate women." 19) “VMI would not have to change very much if it were to admit women” 20) "[t]he notion that admission of women would downgrade VMI's stature ... is a
judgment hardly proved." [Lie, or strawman?] 21) VMI asserted it would be "significantly different" upon the admission of
women, but the Court itself restated this position as "destroy[ing] the school,"
22)"there is no similar evidence in the record that an adversative method is
pedagogically beneficial or is any more likely to produce character traits than other
methodologies." 23) “there was single sex public education available for men at VMI, but no
corresponding single sex public education available for women” 24) "We address specifically and only an educational opportunity recognized
. . . as `unique' . . . ." [Justice Scalia aptly notes that the Supreme Court, by its
very nature, CAN’T issue such a personal ruling] |
               |
|
Modified Tuesday, November 02, 2010 Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
