home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3507 soc.men:23273 soc.women:23058 misc.legal:23298
- Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!noraa
- From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
- Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
- Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:17:24 GMT
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.011724.27341@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
- References: <1993Jan24.115536.26267@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> <C1D4KB.7Jw@cs.psu.edu> <1993Jan24.190910.22854@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1993Jan24.190910.22854@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >In article <C1D4KB.7Jw@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
- >>Very well-stated.
- >>
- >>But I've gotten the impression that the Supreme Court refuses to
- >>hear cases having to do with "domestic relations." Is this so?
- >
- >No. Of course, they'll never hear frivolous cases about anything,
- >so this quixotic crusade probably won't reach the Court, but they
- ^^^^^^^^
-
- Methinks he doth protest too much. Windmills, windmills--I take it
- theodoric of frank believes we ARE churning our wheels, and that men
- are not being discriminated against esp. in domestic relations courts.
- Rhetorician or logician? You be the judge.
-
- >have struck down domestic laws that did, in fact, discriminate.
-
- Hummmmmm....... Half-empty. No, half-full--half-empty--half-full. Did
- not. Did too. Did not. Did too. diidddd notttt......
-
- Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
- TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
-