What is Phyllis Schlafly arguing about now?

[question everything]

Weak women and the Bill of Rights

By Phyllis Schlafly
March 30, 2006

(snip)

The Sixth Amendment promises Americans that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned in the oral argument, the prosecutors in these two cases are seeking to get the court to create an exception to the confrontation clause for the benefit of any woman who makes an accusation against a man.

(snip)

Why are overzealous prosecutors trying to put men in prison for an alleged crime that no one will corroborate in court, and the alleged victim may not want prosecuted or punished? The answer to this question is prosecutors' acceptance of the radical feminist doctrine that women are naturally victims and men are naturally batterers, and that a man can be denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser.

The Violence Against Women Act, funded by federal taxpayers to the tune of nearly $1 billion a year, holds training sessions for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to teach them anti-male and anti-marriage notions, and how to bypass men's constitutional rights. Radical feminists have lobbied state legislators to pass laws that require a policeman to arrest someone any time they are called to investigate an alleged domestic-violence incident.

(snip)

The feminists argue that men's constitutional rights should be overridden to protect women who are afraid to testify against husbands or boyfriends. At oral argument, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to espouse this view. However, Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” that what she calls “the equality principle” requires repeal of the federal Mann Act, which prohibits the transportation of women across state lines for immoral purposes. She wrote that this law “is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates,” of “weak women” needing protection from “bad men.”

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060330/news_mz7e30schlaf.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Phyllis Schlafly reminds me of a battered woman.

A professional woman, but battered.

[paul_fromatlanta]

6. I don't know about "battered" but she clearly has been hurt and is direct

I don't know about "battered" but she clearly has been hurt and is directing that anger outward rather than inward.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Why does Phyllis Schlafly hate women?

You don't suppose she's a closet lesbian, do you?

[paul_fromatlanta]

18. I don't know about her orientation

And I'm a Christian and would like to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I'd like to think that she simply believes sex is bad and since she "resists" that temptation she blames other women who don't resist.

But honestly, I think she is mean and hurts every group she is connected to - she hurts women, she hurts conservatives and she hurts Christian..and frankly she hurts Americans in general even if they don't belong to one of those groups because she polarizes and injects hatefulness in the name of Christ.

[paul_fromatlanta]

2. Remember Phyllis saying if we'd be virgins til marriage AIDS was no pro

Remember Phyllis saying if we'd be virgins til marriage AIDS was no problem.

Hustler responded by putting out a Phyllis Schlafly AIDS tester - it was a dildo with depth marks - once it got to a certain depth it said "Danger, AIDS!"

[meegbear]

4. So tasteless, yet so right on the mark

[paul_fromatlanta]

8. And yet that magazine is largely the reason parody is protected speech

Or at least they pressed the case.

[meegbear]

13. Indeed! Everyome should see "The People vs Larry Flynt" ...

hell, even Cortney Love was good in it.

[paul_fromatlanta]

15. Yes, well Courtney was largely playing herself

and thus didn't get a lot of credit but you are right.

[kevinbgoode]

3. Why would anyone listen to the moral arguments

of a hateful woman who raised a child to be gay, anyway? Puh-leeze - Phyllis is a has-been. She should have taken her own advice and spent her life at home instead of making a career whoring wingnut ideas.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Men own their women

and if the woman needs cuffed around every now and then, that's okay with phyllis. She probably gets sexual pleasure out of the thought of a woman being beaten by her husband. She is a "christian conservative" therefore she is a sick human being.

[Jim__]

7. It's not clear what she is arguing to me.

The husband was convicted without the wife's testimony in court; although the wife's sworn affadavit was used. So, the prosecution did not call the wife. Did the husband have the right to call the wife?

It seems that if the husband did not have the right to call the wife, then he is denied his Constitutional right to confront his accuser. If this is the case, does anyone know why it's the case? I know there are exceptions to rules, but what is the basis for the exception here?

[Katherine Brengle]

16. I think that there is another issue at work here...

The kind of mental trauma that accompanies being physically, verbally, and/or sexually abused by someone who is supposed to love you can preclude your ability to testify coherently in that person's presence.

It doesn't make you weak--it makes you human.

I don't think this is unconstitutional--we too often try the victims rather than the offenders, especially in these types of cases, so it is fair in my conscience.

[Jim__]

20. I found the ACLU brief on this

Here

The ACLU supports Schlafly's position. I'd cut and paste the pertinent parts of their argument; but for some reason cut and paste doesn't seem to work for me from Adobe docs.

Essentially, they say that the critical test is whether or not the affidavit admitted constitutes "testimonial" evidence. If it is "testimonial", then the defendant must have the right to cross-examine; they also claim that there is no real question as to the fact that this affadavit is testimonial.

They recognize the problems that you noted about the difficulty of getting a victim of domestic violence to testify. But, they say these difficulties can usually be worked through with counseling.

I'm not a lawyer and I think the question may revolve around legal technicalities. But, I do think once we abandon Constitutional safeguards, we lose those those safeguards. I tend to believe the right to confront your accuser should win out here. I don't pretend to be an expert and am curious about the arguments as to why it would not.

[Rich Hunt]

23. you are right

There are many, many positions in which I disagree with Schlafly - I don't necessarily see a problem with this one.

Giving too much leeway for police in domestic violence cases opens the door to blackmail and intimidation of political enemies - it's been done before, it will be done again until people learn the meaning of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

For all her problems, Schlafly does articulate civil libertarian positions at times, as do many "paleo-conservatives". Not that I sympathize with their views.

[WI_DEM]

9. Good God, she must be like 106 years old.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. There's a saying where I come from, "bad grass never dies."

[Orrex]

17. Where's your sig-quote from?

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. It's mine.

My favorite, which I had no room for any more was, "We didn't know, no one told us, we couldn't predict it, we never said it" (The smartest guys in the room?)

[Orrex]

21. Very nice! I love applying the welfare queen label to Repugs--so fitting!

[Dulcinea]

22. I thought she was dead. nt

[geniph]

24. Only inside.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. OK, let's try to make sense out of this

Ms. Schlafly is using a case from Indiana in which (if we may believe her) a miscarriage of justice may have occurred to attack the "feminist agenda".

First of all, it is difficult to take Ms. Schlafly at her word. She's been a right wing propagandist masquerading as a conservative activist for over forty years. Why tell the whole truth when half truths work better?

However, I don't know anything about this case, so let's assume this is what there is to know.

If so, she may have a good argument for overturning this particular conviction.

She goes too far in arguing against the Violence against Women Act, as if to say that violence against women is not really a problem.

Typical of her style, she makes broad judgments and presents no examples. For instance:

• The feminists argue that men's constitutional rights should be overridden to protect women who are afraid to testify against husbands or boyfriends.
• Radical feminists have lobbied state legislators to pass laws that require a policeman to arrest someone any time they are called to investigate an alleged domestic-violence incident.
• The Violence Against Women Act, funded by federal taxpayers to the tune of nearly $1 billion a year, holds training sessions for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to teach them anti-male and anti-marriage notions, and how to bypass men's constitutional rights.

Really, Ms. Schlafly? If that is the case, it ought to be a concern. However, Ms. Schlafly presents nothing to support such statements and, given her track record, I shall remain skeptical.

[question everything]

14. Thank you

I suppose if law enforcement people do find signs of abuse, and if they take pictures, perhaps even videotape the woman's testimony - then she needs not testify in the trial.

This was probably the whole point of the act - that battered women too often are afraid to testify.

We can take this to extreme. Since a corpse cannot testify in court against the murderer, is this a violation of the Sixth Amendment?

[geniph]

25. The state has the right to bring the case on BEHALF of the accuser

and as such, a signed affidavit from a witness is sufficient to present as evidence. The state then becomes the accuser whom the defendant is constitionally permitted to require in court.