Your input is requested...

[j2k4]

in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)

would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)

in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited

one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking

last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.

evolution of rights?

Interesting

Scotland is prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places next March. At the moment pubs are busy submitting beer garden plans to local councils. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding noise over here given the less than intoverted nature of Scottish socialising.

I would agree though, that much of what passes as "new rights" is simply current thinking on everyday issues such as smoking vs health.

Tragic, here, that the quest for expanded rights has had a devolutionary affect on bars (pubs), which are dying a slow, horrible death.

Zed-

You are going in the wrong direction.

These people speak as if any whim should be indulged, if only a court can be found in which the judge pronounces positively on whatever.

Their rhetoric is indistinct and vague, which is a rather scatter-shot approach which has nonetheless been pretty successful (for them).

Let's say they hold an "officially" undisclosed agenda.

[JunkBarMan]

in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)

would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)

in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited

one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking

last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.

evolution of rights?

My opinion:

I think this is a very fair and non-discriminatory route taken by the Norway government. It lets smokers smoke, non-smokers not smoke and they both can exist in the same place at the same time, relatively speaking.

My question to you 100% is: Did the people in the neighborhood or area push for this 10 p.m. ban, or was this something the government just saw fit to implement?

In my opinion this 10 p.m. ban seems a bit shortsighted and should be debated futher until a better solution is arrived upon. This of course is without knowing any other facts then the few that have been presented to me.

[MediaSlayer]

Can you give an example of civil liberties denied to white guys?

Not exclusively, but again, that isn't the topic.

I'm asking (listen closely, now) what does it mean to say, "the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities".

I'd ask the same question if anyone sought to expand rights for whitey.

Get it?

I misunderstood your original post, which does not specifically say what you said above

In our recent and current Supreme Court appointment processes, I have observed and heard on several occasions the idea expressed (by minority and women's rights advocates), that rights ought to be continually expanded (unendingly, I guess) as an ongoing imperative of the Court.

The idea is only expressed in the most generic terms, and only by these groups.

I have been baffled as to what is meant by these groups, and how one (in the personage(s) of the Supreme Court) goes about "expanding" rights.

Whence do new rights arise?

By what process could a felt "need" for a new right be determined?

I am not an expert in grammar but it seems to me the literal interpretation of your original post was only talking about expanded rights in general, not expanded rights for specific groups. I know the first thing you will say is "but those groups only exist to further their own agendas/causes and you should have known that i meant..."

2 problems with that:
1 - i have a tendency to take things literally, and miss things like that.

2 - i don't always think of those groups behaving that way because i myself, if i started a group like that, would not be so self serving with respect to pushing the groups own narrow agenda as opposed to acting on behalf of society in general

[Santa]

@JunkBar - yes it was the peoples living in those areas which demanded somekind of control of the noise created on the streets.
This is the result.

[Busyman]

Aww ffs no one knows the context of the statement.

As stated it would mean "The court wants to give extra (previously not given) rights to women and minorities."

SHit.

Someone please go on as to what rights they don't have now.

[j2k4]

your original post was only talking about expanded rights in general, not expanded rights for specific groups. I know the first thing you will say is "but those groups only exist to further their own agendas/causes and you should have known that i meant..."

No, I won't say that, but I will say that you've unintentionally helped me clarify my question.

If I may, borrowing from your post-

They seem to be after 'generally expanded rights for only those specific groups'.

How's that?

[MediaSlayer]

i still think it's a defense mechanism of some sort,

say for instance, i have a cobbler sitting on a table. you walk up, and start eating it without permission. while it may not be a *good* solution, one solution for me to solve the problem would be to start baking a pie.

now as for, do minorities and women have equal rights in america? in practice, no.

j2k there was one case, and i'm sure you had to have heard about it, of an illegal immigrant from mexico tried to sue the georia dmv for not providing the materials in spanish, citing discrimination, or something to that effect. i probably have the details wrong, but it made the paper or the news, i can't remember which. the supreme court ruled against him.

[j2k4]

i still think it's a defense mechanism of some sort,

say for instance, i have a cobbler sitting on a table. you walk up, and start eating it without permission. while it may not be a *good* solution, one solution for me to solve the problem would be to start baking a pie.

now as for, do minorities and women have equal rights in america? in practice, no.

j2k there was one case, and i'm sure you had to have heard about it, of an illegal immigrant from mexico tried to sue the georia dmv for not providing the materials in spanish, citing discrimination, or something to that effect. i probably have the details wrong, but it made the paper or the news, i can't remember which. the supreme court ruled against him.

Yes, yes, but:

Beyond especially legislating "rights" for special interests, hearts only change with experience and time, and such cannot be legislated.

As to my point, let me attempt to refine further:

What is it, to urge that "MORE RIGHTS!!!" be created, then abstain from enumerating some sort of "wish list"?

To demure is to leave the matter in the hands of others, which surely implies a high degree of trust in whatever agency /entity is entrusted with pursuing extended rights, and also in the relative surety of their success.

One also might easily infer that whatever agenda exists is well-known to the demurers, whose demurrals are not without purpose-don't you think?

[MediaSlayer]

regardless of when they want to see these things happen,

they probably just want to see some extra rights given to those groups as a form of "positive discrimination" as mentioned by another poster.

[j2k4]

regardless of when they want to see these things happen,

they probably just want to see some extra rights given to those groups as a form of "positive discrimination" as mentioned by another poster.

I agree, but mentioned as the most prominent feature of a set of remarks being solicited in reaction to the pending confirmation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

To what other possible end a not-so-subtle (and incredibly inappropriate) "reminder" of expected judicial behavior?