Perhaps her most RECOGNIZABLE role would be Calleigh Duquesne in CSI MIAMI, but for my money, Emily Proctor´s BEST ROLE as an actress is TWW´s Ainsley Hayes.
They want us to believe she is brilliant, but these scenes demonstrate that she doesn't understand law all that well. But she speaks with confidence and authority, so she must be smart. Her conclusion that 14th Amendment covers the Equal Rights Amendment was not only wrong, it was absolutely ridiculous. The writers should have done better, but I guess they assumed that the average viewer wouldn't think about what she said all that much.
Yep. Her concluding that the rights of women are "covered" by the 14th Amendment makes me conclude that she got everything she had in life based on her privilege, looks and self-assured nature. Because he conclusion is ridiculous under even the most simple analysis. She doesn't like that the ERA treated women like victims. Well, guess what, pretty young thing who never had a worry in her life other than choosing whether to attend Harvard or Yale, women WERE victims of the male patriarchy. Every sentence in these scenes seemed to start with "I". Republicanism at its very core.
@@superfreaktitan my point was at the time show was made your argument was null and void. As you said yourself the amendments protecting the civil rights of women were passed a very long time ago. Therefore ainsley is right.
Yeah, I bet that it would make for a very spicy debate, though in all honestly, I prefer 1v1 debates, if only because you don't end up with everyone fighting for their little slice of time.
@@RamenNoodle1985 Wow ... three great women don't have the same voice as you so you belittle them and the one you do agree with is written by a tv script writer ... ERA is going to hell in a hand basket. You deserve your 0.79 cents
That's one of the great things about this show. Even though the writers were obviously liberals, and the main characters were, they never made the conservatives look bad or stupid, just two sides with valid arguments battling it out
No, her argument actually is not very good, but because she is so self assured, she seems to make a valid point. I am guessing the writers didn't realize how vacuous her arguments against ERA were. However they were, indeed, vacuous, wrong and demonstrative of Republican selfishness, not to mention the blindness that wealthy pretty white and blonde privilege creates.
@@borislavkrustev8906 Ask any woman who is not thin and blonde. And studies have shown that both women and men who have blonde hair climb the professional ladder more quickly than everyone else. For some reason, they are viewed as more trustworthy and competent.
@@gmh471 So everyone should just dye their hair. Sorry, but this is far left nonsense. Yes, people are not treated the same by society due to a thousand different characteristics. Deal with it. There are plenty of plumpy brunettes out there killing it in anything they decide to go for.
It could have been cool to see them get involved in a relationship Ainsley and Sam would have had a very complex relationship one of the best on the show
I agree but then you would have Sam and Ainsley as well as Josh and Donna so two office relationships. I am sure congress would have something to say about that.
I agree that the protections of the ERA are already part of other laws passed by Congress but the reason for an Amendment is that federal laws can be abolished by a simple majority vote of Congress when signed by POTUS while as an Amendment a repeal would require a 2/3 majority vote in Congress and 3/4 of the states making such rights and protections more difficult to abolish once they have been granted.
She must’ve missed the part of law school where the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to civil or employment rights. Hence why women couldn’t vote until 50 years after the 14th was passed, and why they could be discriminated against at work until the 1965 Civil Rights Act- which could be overturned if there is no constitutional protection. Just because Sorkin writes characters to sound confident doesn’t mean they (or he) make a sound argument.
What Sam was struggling to say in reply was that simply because you wish for equality to be implied in law does not make it so. Imagine a black man refusing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment because he "does not need his rights handed down to him by old white men". It would equally make zero sense. We cannot pretend equality exists in the law, we must make it so
The problem with that argument is that it was exactly the same argument that the founding fathers used against the Bill of Rights (and lost). Not the least of which was the Tenth Amendment. Which, frankly, does an awful lot of lifting in these literalist days -- a Constitutional interpretation method that is incidentally quite common among Republicans
Well it’s not the same because she’s refusing the ERA only BECAUSE she already has 13/14/15. If she didn’t have the 14th then yes your point would stand but that’s literally not her point
@@elliottmcnear8516 You have drastically missed the point. Despite the existence of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, discrimination on the basis of sex still exists within the law. Her objection to an ERA is that it would be patronizing is of the same logic as the idea that an amendment outlawing racial discrimination within the law would be patronizing. You will notice that no black man of the 1960s said such a thing, but that racists fought tooth and nail against such. There is no implication of gender equality in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and those who wrote such amendments would be horrified at that idea. They didn't WANT gender equality and they fought hard against it even beyond 1920 when women finally got the vote
@@CodaMission under legal definition though, women are citizens and thus protected by the 14th even if that wasn’t the intention. By needing an ERA, you are just confirming the patriarchal notion that the 14th is not for women and women don’t get its benefits, when the truly progressive thing to argue is that they do.
@@CodaMission and amendment outlawing racial discrimination would be patronizing because it already exists in other amendments. But if we hadn’t ratified those yet, then it would not be patronizing. Your analogy was incorrect because the only reason someone would consider 13-14-15 patronizing is on the grounds that they are already protected by 13-14-15. You got your timeline screwed up
I guess my problem with the ERA was that it was attempting to get the country to follow a promise it had already made ... by repeating it. As usual, Sorkin (in the mouth of Ainsley) says that beautifully. And of course the problem remains: We're still not following the promise we made in the 14th amendment.
Sam didn't counter because it was an absolutely horrible argument. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and was entirely useless in granting women any rights at all. They couldn't even vote. You know what did allow women to vote? More laws. You know what allowed women to own property? More laws. You know what allowed women to get credit cards? More laws. There are literally hundreds of examples of sexual discrimination between now and the ratification of the 14th amendment.
@@KasbashPlaysno it's mostly the fact he was trying to convince and not win , something was in the way of his killer instinct my guest is a different instinct
It didn't matter that she was a Republican, Ainsley was smart and Bartlet likes smart people working for him. That actress was the only reason I ever watched Miami CSI
@@blackhawkswincup2010 The entire writing for all 10 seasons couldn't get anywhere close to the impact of a scene like Oliver Babbish hitting the dictaphone with a gavel, let alone any of the truly impactful scenes. They gave Emily Proctor the line "Uhhh, these boots were new" when she picks up some sticky roof sealant that is supposed to be a part of an evidence chain. The CSI Miami writers couldn't create a menu worthy of The West Wing post-shooting snack table.
@@00chla50 you actually believe republicans are motivated by satanic cults? You do know a lot of republicans are Christians and in Christianity, Jesus and Satan are kinda like Joker and Batman.... Or was that a clever joke. It’s hard to know in the current climate. I mean we live in a world where the left wing can riot (unrestrained) for months because a cop murdered a black man and was arrested for it. But if some right wingers do it one afternoon on one day, then suddenly everyone loses their minds....... If you need to lie about your opponents beliefs in order to strengthen your points, it will just backfire on you. If however your comment was just a sarcastic clever joke, I apologise for the rant.
@@jimmy2k4o In any other Democracy, an attack on the Parlament would have had many occupied Bodybags on the Green space in front of the Capital Building. The insurgents won the life lottery that Day 🇮🇪🇪🇺
Ainsley is usually in favour of ignoring context - which is essential when you're dealing with social problems shaped over centuries. The original laws written down in the constitution were clearly meant for a certain class of citizens - noticeably excluding people of colour and women and the enforcement of those laws with those specific intentions led to this scenario where the ERA is even a thing. Acknowledging a specific problem doesn't mean more government intervention, it means you can look at the precedent it set and learn from it.
Remember when the conservative, female character said that the 14th Amendment protects her rights as a woman, and that we didn't need an Amendment that explicitly said her rights as a woman exist because it was implied by the 14th? Guess Alito skipped that episode.
Yep. If anything, this scene demonstrates that Ainsley is not a very good lawyer. Gender discrimination is not "covered" by the 14th Amendment and, as you say, the justices just proved that with Dobbs. What's really glaring is that Ainsley keeps saying "I" don't need the Equal Rights Amendment. Well, sure, wealthy, well-educated, comes from a prominent family, pretty blond mynx who will never want for employment might not need it. Like a true Republican, Ainsley cannot fathom that certain legislation would benefit OTHER people who are less fortunate than she.
@@gmh471 By your argument we should legislate every god-awful thing under the sun because it might benefit some other person instead of acknowledging what should be true for us all based on the bedrock principles of our entire nation and people.
Ainsley is also just wrong. The 14th Amendment didn't give any woman the right to vote, just black men. Women got that right with the 19th Amendment, 50 years later.
Yeah, 14A's purpose was defining a citizen, and declaring all citizens as equal under the law. They still have to make the laws to apply 14A to... laws such as the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, etc. These are the laws that prevent discrimination, and 14A gives those laws the full weight and authority of Congress. 14A makes it a federal issue, not a states issue... from border to border, and sea to shining sea, you will treat every citizen equally, under the law. Of course, that's a perfect world. In a perfect world, she's absolutely right that by the law, she and every other woman in this country has the same legal standing as any man. It's written there in 14A. Every law applies equally, discrimination against a protected class (which includes both genders) is illegal. Unfortunately, we live in the interpretive dance world, and the Potomac Two-Step is a time-honored and well practiced art form in circumventing the law.
1:06 The irony, of course, is that the "originalists" would like nothing more than to reduce the 14th amendment to shreds the way they are doing right now to the Establishment Clause. 14th Amendment was never intended to provide women with equal rights, and yet the (supposedly since virtually all conservatives claim to be originalists) originalist, "interpret the Constitution as written (wink wink)" is the one championing it.
She lost the argument in the hallway though, when she admitted that she makes less than a man, despite the amendment she cited being in existence and the fact she herself is a lawyer. I absolutely agree with the ideal that there should be as few laws as possible to make the country/state/city run, but when a law is proving itself to be too general to address specific issues, then an additional law being more specific is called for, and if it sticks to addressing the specific issues intended to be already covered by an existing law, does not limit rights any more than they already were. Meaning you can't just say "We have 1000 laws and that's obviously too much because one thousand is a big number, we should only have two hundred laws." Like Trumps bullshit order to remove two regulations to institute a single new one. The U.S. is a large country, with a vast variety of environments, people, and combinations thereof. It's impossible to get all the laws you need in place in the beginning, which is why amendments to the constitution exist in the first place. You can't foresee every situation that requires the government to step in and make a law, and the more complex the situation, the more laws that need to be made to address specific issues. Ask the makers of card based roleplay games and similar interactive activities, look at their rule books. They are so extensive because players have kept revealing exploits or just combinations of legal game mechanics that achieve something entirely unintended by the game makers and that break the game. So yes, take issue with a specific law if you think it's redundant, or if it needs to be re-written/replaced entirely for the modern age. But arguing for "small government" and taking that to mean we should be satisfied with the laws we already have because more is somehow inherently bad, is just stupidity incarnate.
The .79 to a $1 difference is an average. It doesn’t separate by yearly income the women who have no children or have full time child care, from women who take time off to raise their children.
I appreciate this analysis, especially the bit about rule exploits. However , it glosses over that every additional law or precedent adds to the total mass an unaccountable institution may bring to bear on a citizen. Her point isn’t really about total number, but enforcement. Fewer, equitably applied laws would be inherently more just than endless ‘errata’ to cover for unevenly enforced, existing rules.
@@MichaelRobertHart Her point .. and plaudits to the writers, is that a woman republican can believe the spin that she's protected by the laws - even though she makes less than she should, is not protected equally, and does not have the same benefits accrued to her as a man in the same position. And that all the people who laud her speech are complicit in that too.
@@ValeriePallaoro she acknowledges she’s not in practice equally protected, but that adding an additional law (which would still not protect her, as the issue is enforcement) is antithetical to her other values.
The reason the ERA never got off the ground was the Hayden rider pushed for by feminists like Steinem and Wolf, which let special protections for women get exempt, so it was just a one way ERA.
I do wonder though what are the rights of women who are not citizens of the country. Like people there on work visas, or long term visas etc. without the ERA what happens to them. Multiple overlapping definitions always leave gaps, better to clearly define the subset you want to protect. The pre-existing law protected ainsley not all women. She mistakenly took her experience as that of all women
Emily Proctor is nice to look at and has a pleasant voice, but her character is what a Hollywood liberal who would never knowingly breathe the same air as a conservative imagines what a pet Republican would be like.
Yeah, no. A feminist who knows the history of this country and the loopholes involved in the legal system shouldn't object to a second amendment ensuring our equality. I can know that men and women are equals and still want to hear "old, white men" put it into a second law, just in case their descendants decide they want some of their dominance back.
Lawyers get a bachelors degree first and then a JD at law school so she would have gone to both. You always hear people say "I went to Harvard Law" or such to signify that they got their law degree there but their bachelors could be from somewhere else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought women didn't want the ERA at the time, because it would mean women being signed into the draft and losing the advantages they legally had in places like the family courts.
It’s a myth that women enjoy Advantages in family court. Anyway there is no law that gives them advantage. The statistics where most women get custody in most cases, were influenced by a large portion of men who never applied for custody If both parties apply, the split is typically 50-50
that’s very cute but not what a pay gap means..if a man is a 2nd grade teacher and earns less than the principle who is a woman..that is considered fair..the principle has more degrees and years of experience. A pay gap is when two people doing the same job get paid wildly different amounts solely because of gender
Exactly. Seems catchy and it’s a tv show so it’s all in good fun to be quick and smart. Truth is there is no truth to it. Only pay gap that might exist is in Hollywood which is one of the biggest ironies ever
@@moegreene7940 Well, let’s be honest, Moe-there is disagreement about whether there is a pay gap, and there are strong opinions and vigorous arguments on both sides.
See that's the thing... Sam is a chauvinist. He thinks she does need the law because he doesn't see her as equal. You see that when he meets Leo's daughter for the first time.
sam isn't a chauvinist he's just arrogant. he doesn't think Ainsly needs protection because she's weak or less than he is (every scene with her shows she can look after herself) hes a realist who knows that if its not written in the law that there will be people that argue that the current laws don't provide that protection. And even if the law exists theres no guarantee it will work, take the exchange regarding pay, theres a law saying women and men should be paid equally and Ainsly herself states they aren't
So, two things - firstly the wage gap is not explicable by claiming that companies are illegally paying women less than men for equal work (the gap is due mostly, these days, due to women working in different fields - if you want to legislate a solution, you'd have to legislate that companies cannot hire any men if they don't have an equal number of women in the exact same job description, and then legislate that pay is based on job description and no other factors including experience/age/hours worked/etc.), but secondly her "slam dunk" at the end was stupid. Of course your rights come down from the law. Rights are literally limitations on what the law and other citizens may do to you; there's no such thing as equal rights if it's not in the law, be it the Constitution or a federal/state/local statute. That's what made the bill of rights so noteworthy in the first place, it's one of the earliest (not THE earliest, though) examples of a core governing document listing a bunch of rights that citizens have that the government is generally not allowed to violate even if the legislature or executive branch wants (and discussions about how and when they can be limited, such as when Scalia explains that the first amendment is not unlimited, are perfect examples of how EVERYTHING including your rights, ARE man-made and passed down from the government, whether it's the judicial or legislative branch). Annoying to see people in the comments not get that she was actually completely wrong on this. Not every time a fictional character is given a "slam dunk" in a story do you have to just mindlessly nod along like they must be correct. She was wrong. Of course your rights come from the law in some way (in our case generally the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution), because that's what the rights are - limitations on what the government can do to you.
Ainsley is missing the point. The ERA is needed because the law treats men and women differently. Why is it controversial to believe that everyone should be subject to the same laws and not have separate laws based on gender or race? The answer to that is religion. Think of how much Saudi Arabia is criticized for having a law against women driving (and many more laws against their equality to men), but people in the US are too arrogant to recognize they have the same type of discrimination built into their laws which are supported by Supreme Court rulings. Here's an example: there can be laws made against women going topless while men are allowed to go topless. An obvious double standard. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that this double standard is acceptable. Meanwhile, fat 400 pound men with there ddd man boobs are ok to go topless, while a flat chested woman is subject to arrest. Why is it controversial to say that no one can go topless or that everyone can? Here's another example: companies are allowed to make rules that require women in certain roles to wear makeup or certain clothing while men in the exact same role are not required to do so. If men can wear a suit and no makeup to a meeting, why can't women do the same? That's why the ERA is needed. Laws are not equal, and women in the US can be discriminated against just like many women in the middle east are. Anyone that says there is equality in US law is a liar or ignorant.
"require women in certain roles to wear makeup or certain clothing while men in the exact same role are not required to do so" because wearing makeup isn't a thing men typically do? but seriously its not about that its about appearing presentable, as a representative how you look/dress is a reflection on the company, and men do have rules to follow in these situations they just differ by gender because it would be strange for a man to be wearing makeup and a dress, its the same reason dress codes differ by gender, because people are different. the reason why the rules might be more strict on female employees is because they bring in more business. both men and women prefer dealing with women in these roles as they are seen as more compassionate and thus more better at providing good service. where as men in that role can often be assumed to be too aggressive or sleazy
@@corberus3119 If someone does business based on how much makeup a saleswoman is wearing, they are not smart to put it lightly. Unless they are a makeup salesperson, I suppose. I know that people are biased but that's not a good reason for allowing discrimination to continue. There are of course professions that are based on looks like modeling and acting, which are exceptions. If a profession isn't based on looks then there is no reason to not have a uniform dress policy for everyone. The way to stop people from expecting a random saleswoman to 'typically' be dressed like a high-end call girl is to make it illegal (people can still wear makeup and whatever, it just can't be required only for one gender in a dress code). Then after a couple generations, that will be the new standard. Just like it was controversial when women started wearing pants instead of dresses. I am not saying that there cannot be dress codes to make employees look presentable, just that there needs to be a single dress code. Boys shouldn't be discriminated against if they want to have long hair, and girls shouldn't be discriminated against if they want to wear a pantsuit instead of a skirt. Getting back to Ainsley in TWW, her argument is wrong. She says that she is already protected by the 14th amendment but that is false. Laws and rules have been made that target only one gender. Men and women aren't treated equal if different rules apply to them.
It is amusing to me how often the Republican sentiments in the show, especially by Ainsley, have now in present day of 2022 been shown to be wildly foolish
@@Michael-cf9cjher point being that a new law is unnecessary to protect women assuming that the current laws already work fine, while pointing out that the current law regarding pay doesn't work seems foolish to me
Why is she wrong? Just thought of this video after watching John Oliver last night. Her ideas ring true. The ERA SOUNDS good, but it undermines the 14th amendment. It is, as she says, redundant. If we take the 14th amendment seriously, there is no problem.
@@matthewcorreia1721 She's wrong because the ERA isn't about equal rights. The Hayden Rider was added specifically to prevent women from dealing with the bad things men deal with. It's literally women are guaranteed all the good things men get, but do not have to deal with any of the bad things that men get.
@@raterNAZ : Chuck is talking about conscription and death. An ERA, and women are drafted if we bring back conscription. That is pretty much a non-starter but it would have to happen if men were ever to be drafted. Women do NOT need (or even want) the ERA. Its pointless. It was created in 1972 by women who could not think deeply. They were insane, irrational, and hysterical. And their arguments should never have been taken seriously and its a very good thing that our Constitution was never amended for this harpy nonsense.
I loved the show, but funny, it showed how sexist democrats are in their first scene when Josh tells Toby Sam is getting his ass kicked by a girl. GiRL. Not a woman.
She was just enchanting, amazing, witty and brilliant.
Perhaps her most RECOGNIZABLE role would be Calleigh Duquesne in CSI MIAMI, but for my money, Emily Proctor´s BEST ROLE as an actress is TWW´s Ainsley Hayes.
And by the way, if I had a saying in TWW, Ainsley Hayes and Sam Seaborn should have ended up married.
They want us to believe she is brilliant, but these scenes demonstrate that she doesn't understand law all that well. But she speaks with confidence and authority, so she must be smart. Her conclusion that 14th Amendment covers the Equal Rights Amendment was not only wrong, it was absolutely ridiculous. The writers should have done better, but I guess they assumed that the average viewer wouldn't think about what she said all that much.
Ainsley also admired Sam, and understood that even when he was wrong, his heart was always in the right place.
He was not wrong. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. You could list on one hand the number of rights women had at that time.
Yep. Her concluding that the rights of women are "covered" by the 14th Amendment makes me conclude that she got everything she had in life based on her privilege, looks and self-assured nature. Because he conclusion is ridiculous under even the most simple analysis. She doesn't like that the ERA treated women like victims. Well, guess what, pretty young thing who never had a worry in her life other than choosing whether to attend Harvard or Yale, women WERE victims of the male patriarchy. Every sentence in these scenes seemed to start with "I". Republicanism at its very core.
@@superfreaktitan this show was set after 1868 wasn’t it?
@@jimmy2k4o It was. And can you guess why women have more rights now than in 1868 after the amendment was passed?
@@superfreaktitan my point was at the time show was made your argument was null and void.
As you said yourself the amendments protecting the civil rights of women were passed a very long time ago.
Therefore ainsley is right.
*triumphant music plays two minutes later*
"hey, anybody hear that...?"
"Oh... yeah, Ainsley must've found her peach."
My head played this. ruclips.net/video/5VRr9NG7RE0/видео.html
@@rcslyman8929lol that's just too good
Incredibly convenient as it presents me with the opportunity to find Ainsley's peach ! 🍑! Brilliant women are so sexy!
What wouldn't I give to see Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, Ann Coulter and Ainsley Hayes in a room together...
Yeah, I bet that it would make for a very spicy debate, though in all honestly, I prefer 1v1 debates, if only because you don't end up with everyone fighting for their little slice of time.
Would make a great hunger games!
My money is on Ann
My money's on Ainsley. Steinem's a sellout, Wolf is a terf, and God only knows what Coulter is.
@@RamenNoodle1985 Wow ... three great women don't have the same voice as you so you belittle them and the one you do agree with is written by a tv script writer ... ERA is going to hell in a hand basket. You deserve your 0.79 cents
@@jimmy2k4o Ainsley drops Ann like a bad habit.
That's one of the great things about this show. Even though the writers were obviously liberals, and the main characters were, they never made the conservatives look bad or stupid, just two sides with valid arguments battling it out
No, her argument actually is not very good, but because she is so self assured, she seems to make a valid point. I am guessing the writers didn't realize how vacuous her arguments against ERA were. However they were, indeed, vacuous, wrong and demonstrative of Republican selfishness, not to mention the blindness that wealthy pretty white and blonde privilege creates.
@@gheller2261 Blonde privilege? :D :D :D
@@borislavkrustev8906 Ask any woman who is not thin and blonde. And studies have shown that both women and men who have blonde hair climb the professional ladder more quickly than everyone else. For some reason, they are viewed as more trustworthy and competent.
@@gmh471 So everyone should just dye their hair. Sorry, but this is far left nonsense. Yes, people are not treated the same by society due to a thousand different characteristics. Deal with it. There are plenty of plumpy brunettes out there killing it in anything they decide to go for.
@@gmh471 blondes are known to be trustworthy and competent? You must be blonde.
Still my favorite scene of any show! Thank you!
Fav WW segment of all time. Ainsley in rare form! 🤣🤣👍🏼
That scene is my favorite in the entire series. Go Ansley go!!
It could have been cool to see them get involved in a relationship Ainsley and Sam would have had a very complex relationship one of the best on the show
Csi Mami has a lot to answer for and yes it was a good show but west wing is top draw
I agree but then you would have Sam and Ainsley as well as Josh and Donna so two office relationships. I am sure congress would have something to say about that.
I agree that the protections of the ERA are already part of other laws passed by Congress but the reason for an Amendment is that federal laws can be abolished by a simple majority vote of Congress when signed by POTUS while as an Amendment a repeal would require a 2/3 majority vote in Congress and 3/4 of the states making such rights and protections more difficult to abolish once they have been granted.
She must’ve missed the part of law school where the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to civil or employment rights. Hence why women couldn’t vote until 50 years after the 14th was passed, and why they could be discriminated against at work until the 1965 Civil Rights Act- which could be overturned if there is no constitutional protection.
Just because Sorkin writes characters to sound confident doesn’t mean they (or he) make a sound argument.
What Sam was struggling to say in reply was that simply because you wish for equality to be implied in law does not make it so. Imagine a black man refusing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment because he "does not need his rights handed down to him by old white men". It would equally make zero sense. We cannot pretend equality exists in the law, we must make it so
The problem with that argument is that it was exactly the same argument that the founding fathers used against the Bill of Rights (and lost). Not the least of which was the Tenth Amendment. Which, frankly, does an awful lot of lifting in these literalist days -- a Constitutional interpretation method that is incidentally quite common among Republicans
Well it’s not the same because she’s refusing the ERA only BECAUSE she already has 13/14/15. If she didn’t have the 14th then yes your point would stand but that’s literally not her point
@@elliottmcnear8516 You have drastically missed the point. Despite the existence of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, discrimination on the basis of sex still exists within the law. Her objection to an ERA is that it would be patronizing is of the same logic as the idea that an amendment outlawing racial discrimination within the law would be patronizing. You will notice that no black man of the 1960s said such a thing, but that racists fought tooth and nail against such. There is no implication of gender equality in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and those who wrote such amendments would be horrified at that idea. They didn't WANT gender equality and they fought hard against it even beyond 1920 when women finally got the vote
@@CodaMission under legal definition though, women are citizens and thus protected by the 14th even if that wasn’t the intention. By needing an ERA, you are just confirming the patriarchal notion that the 14th is not for women and women don’t get its benefits, when the truly progressive thing to argue is that they do.
@@CodaMission and amendment outlawing racial discrimination would be patronizing because it already exists in other amendments. But if we hadn’t ratified those yet, then it would not be patronizing. Your analogy was incorrect because the only reason someone would consider 13-14-15 patronizing is on the grounds that they are already protected by 13-14-15. You got your timeline screwed up
I guess my problem with the ERA was that it was attempting to get the country to follow a promise it had already made ... by repeating it.
As usual, Sorkin (in the mouth of Ainsley) says that beautifully.
And of course the problem remains: We're still not following the promise we made in the 14th amendment.
2023 and the ERA is back !!!
It did? How'd I miss that?!
And Sam gets his ass kicked again.
By a long legged blonde Republican.... AGAIN!
... because he keeps assuming that someone who isn't overtly liberal is automatically dumb. And I say this as a liberal.
Sam didn't counter because it was an absolutely horrible argument. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and was entirely useless in granting women any rights at all. They couldn't even vote. You know what did allow women to vote? More laws. You know what allowed women to own property? More laws. You know what allowed women to get credit cards? More laws. There are literally hundreds of examples of sexual discrimination between now and the ratification of the 14th amendment.
@@KasbashPlaysno it's mostly the fact he was trying to convince and not win , something was in the way of his killer instinct my guest is a different instinct
No 'all night pastry chef' line? What a crime!
It didn't matter that she was a Republican, Ainsley was smart and Bartlet likes smart people working for him. That actress was the only reason I ever watched Miami CSI
I never watched an episode of CSI Miami, but I'll bet the house that the writing wasn't anywhere near the level of this show.
@@blackhawkswincup2010 The entire writing for all 10 seasons couldn't get anywhere close to the impact of a scene like Oliver Babbish hitting the dictaphone with a gavel, let alone any of the truly impactful scenes.
They gave Emily Proctor the line "Uhhh, these boots were new" when she picks up some sticky roof sealant that is supposed to be a part of an evidence chain. The CSI Miami writers couldn't create a menu worthy of The West Wing post-shooting snack table.
Heard Anne Coulter. Shuddered.
I mean, I actually did. 😅
I love love love this.
Ms Ainsley Hayes. Ladies and Gentleman. She thought she saw a peach. Equal Rights Amendment? Are you kidding me?
I've just seen the Republican Candidate for 2024
If only....
Nah. Not enough support for Qanon or insurrection.
@@00chla50 you actually believe republicans are motivated by satanic cults? You do know a lot of republicans are Christians and in Christianity, Jesus and Satan are kinda like
Joker and Batman....
Or was that a clever joke.
It’s hard to know in the current climate.
I mean we live in a world where the left wing can riot (unrestrained) for months because a cop murdered a black man and was arrested for it.
But if some right wingers do it one afternoon on one day, then suddenly everyone loses their minds.......
If you need to lie about your opponents beliefs in order to strengthen your points, it will just backfire on you.
If however your comment was just a sarcastic clever joke, I apologise for the rant.
@@jimmy2k4o
In any other Democracy, an attack on the Parlament would have had many occupied Bodybags on the Green space in front of the Capital Building.
The insurgents won the life lottery that Day
🇮🇪🇪🇺
"Certainly, with Phyllis Schaffly here."
Sam loses every single fight he has with Ainsley. 😄
Cause he doesn't even try
Ainsley is usually in favour of ignoring context - which is essential when you're dealing with social problems shaped over centuries. The original laws written down in the constitution were clearly meant for a certain class of citizens - noticeably excluding people of colour and women and the enforcement of those laws with those specific intentions led to this scenario where the ERA is even a thing. Acknowledging a specific problem doesn't mean more government intervention, it means you can look at the precedent it set and learn from it.
Remember when the conservative, female character said that the 14th Amendment protects her rights as a woman, and that we didn't need an Amendment that explicitly said her rights as a woman exist because it was implied by the 14th?
Guess Alito skipped that episode.
Yep. If anything, this scene demonstrates that Ainsley is not a very good lawyer. Gender discrimination is not "covered" by the 14th Amendment and, as you say, the justices just proved that with Dobbs. What's really glaring is that Ainsley keeps saying "I" don't need the Equal Rights Amendment. Well, sure, wealthy, well-educated, comes from a prominent family, pretty blond mynx who will never want for employment might not need it. Like a true Republican, Ainsley cannot fathom that certain legislation would benefit OTHER people who are less fortunate than she.
@@gmh471 By your argument we should legislate every god-awful thing under the sun because it might benefit some other person instead of acknowledging what should be true for us all based on the bedrock principles of our entire nation and people.
Ainsley is also just wrong. The 14th Amendment didn't give any woman the right to vote, just black men. Women got that right with the 19th Amendment, 50 years later.
Yeah, 14A's purpose was defining a citizen, and declaring all citizens as equal under the law. They still have to make the laws to apply 14A to... laws such as the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, etc. These are the laws that prevent discrimination, and 14A gives those laws the full weight and authority of Congress. 14A makes it a federal issue, not a states issue... from border to border, and sea to shining sea, you will treat every citizen equally, under the law.
Of course, that's a perfect world. In a perfect world, she's absolutely right that by the law, she and every other woman in this country has the same legal standing as any man. It's written there in 14A. Every law applies equally, discrimination against a protected class (which includes both genders) is illegal. Unfortunately, we live in the interpretive dance world, and the Potomac Two-Step is a time-honored and well practiced art form in circumventing the law.
Sam clearly lost this round
The sexual tension between these two was so evident to everyone it seems but them. I so wish Sam and Ainsley had hooked up.
0:51, apparently, that book's first edition was released in 1940. Was it really that popular 50 years later?? Or were later editions edited?
I loved seeing Ainsley fight for this many many years ago... now all I think is "she doesn't want to embarrassed"...what a cop out.
What cop out? What happened?
1:06 The irony, of course, is that the "originalists" would like nothing more than to reduce the 14th amendment to shreds the way they are doing right now to the Establishment Clause. 14th Amendment was never intended to provide women with equal rights, and yet the (supposedly since virtually all conservatives claim to be originalists) originalist, "interpret the Constitution as written (wink wink)" is the one championing it.
How are they shredding the 14th?
The government that passed the fourteenth Amendment bears very little resemblance to the government of 1789.
@@christopherweber9464 it was very similar. same political structures. only afterwards was it different.
@@kenlandon6130 the government of 1789 saw no problem with secession. The government of 1865 just got done fighting a war to prevent that very thing.
@@christopherweber9464 Founders were split on whether secession was constitutional. There wasn't a consensus on the matter
She lost the argument in the hallway though, when she admitted that she makes less than a man, despite the amendment she cited being in existence and the fact she herself is a lawyer. I absolutely agree with the ideal that there should be as few laws as possible to make the country/state/city run, but when a law is proving itself to be too general to address specific issues, then an additional law being more specific is called for, and if it sticks to addressing the specific issues intended to be already covered by an existing law, does not limit rights any more than they already were.
Meaning you can't just say "We have 1000 laws and that's obviously too much because one thousand is a big number, we should only have two hundred laws." Like Trumps bullshit order to remove two regulations to institute a single new one.
The U.S. is a large country, with a vast variety of environments, people, and combinations thereof. It's impossible to get all the laws you need in place in the beginning, which is why amendments to the constitution exist in the first place. You can't foresee every situation that requires the government to step in and make a law, and the more complex the situation, the more laws that need to be made to address specific issues.
Ask the makers of card based roleplay games and similar interactive activities, look at their rule books. They are so extensive because players have kept revealing exploits or just combinations of legal game mechanics that achieve something entirely unintended by the game makers and that break the game.
So yes, take issue with a specific law if you think it's redundant, or if it needs to be re-written/replaced entirely for the modern age. But arguing for "small government" and taking that to mean we should be satisfied with the laws we already have because more is somehow inherently bad, is just stupidity incarnate.
Multivariability.
The .79 to a $1 difference is an average. It doesn’t separate by yearly income the women who have no children or have full time child care, from women who take time off to raise their children.
I appreciate this analysis, especially the bit about rule exploits.
However , it glosses over that every additional law or precedent adds to the total mass an unaccountable institution may bring to bear on a citizen.
Her point isn’t really about total number, but enforcement. Fewer, equitably applied laws would be inherently more just than endless ‘errata’ to cover for unevenly enforced, existing rules.
@@MichaelRobertHart Her point .. and plaudits to the writers, is that a woman republican can believe the spin that she's protected by the laws - even though she makes less than she should, is not protected equally, and does not have the same benefits accrued to her as a man in the same position. And that all the people who laud her speech are complicit in that too.
@@ValeriePallaoro she acknowledges she’s not in practice equally protected, but that adding an additional law (which would still not protect her, as the issue is enforcement) is antithetical to her other values.
I thought I may have seen there a peach
The reason the ERA never got off the ground was the Hayden rider pushed for by feminists like Steinem and Wolf, which let special protections for women get exempt, so it was just a one way ERA.
I too saw a peach. Her name was Ainsley.
Not anymore.
I do wonder though what are the rights of women who are not citizens of the country. Like people there on work visas, or long term visas etc.
without the ERA what happens to them. Multiple overlapping definitions always leave gaps, better to clearly define the subset you want to protect.
The pre-existing law protected ainsley not all women. She mistakenly took her experience as that of all women
Emily Proctor is nice to look at and has a pleasant voice, but her character is what a Hollywood liberal who would never knowingly breathe the same air as a conservative imagines what a pet Republican would be like.
How come she gets to wear an FBI top in the White House, when she isn’t an FBI Agent assigned to the White House?
Because she’s cute.
You can buy those tops from gift stores and street vendors around Washington DC - or at least you could back when this show was made.
This is what feminism should be
Yeah, no. A feminist who knows the history of this country and the loopholes involved in the legal system shouldn't object to a second amendment ensuring our equality. I can know that men and women are equals and still want to hear "old, white men" put it into a second law, just in case their descendants decide they want some of their dominance back.
Is Smith College part of her because I'm pretty sure she said she went to Harvard in on the right side
Lawyers get a bachelors degree first and then a JD at law school so she would have gone to both. You always hear people say "I went to Harvard Law" or such to signify that they got their law degree there but their bachelors could be from somewhere else.
She went to Harvard law school
Why’s she wearing a FBI top?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought women didn't want the ERA at the time, because it would mean women being signed into the draft and losing the advantages they legally had in places like the family courts.
It’s a myth that women enjoy Advantages in family court. Anyway there is no law that gives them advantage.
The statistics where most women get custody in most cases, were influenced by a large portion of men who never applied for custody
If both parties apply, the split is typically 50-50
@@avantikamathur4387 Where did you find that stat? I'd be interested in having that citation when I am discussing with people.
I've been through family court, women don't have the advantage you think they do.
that’s very cute but not what a pay gap means..if a man is a 2nd grade teacher and earns less than the principle who is a woman..that is considered fair..the principle has more degrees and years of experience.
A pay gap is when two people doing the same job get paid wildly different amounts solely because of gender
Agreed, but that's Ainsley, not C.J.
@@Ansible1000 thanks..I was responding to a you tube person with the initials cj.
Exactly. Seems catchy and it’s a tv show so it’s all in good fun to be quick and smart. Truth is there is no truth to it. Only pay gap that might exist is in Hollywood which is one of the biggest ironies ever
@@moegreene7940 Well, let’s be honest, Moe-there is disagreement about whether there is a pay gap, and there are strong opinions and vigorous arguments on both sides.
@@davebartholome2924 theres no good evidence or argument to support the existance of an actual wage gap.
See that's the thing... Sam is a chauvinist. He thinks she does need the law because he doesn't see her as equal. You see that when he meets Leo's daughter for the first time.
The show is full of sexism
Brilliant analysis, you have helped me understand the character and some people much better. You have my thanks.
sam isn't a chauvinist he's just arrogant. he doesn't think Ainsly needs protection because she's weak or less than he is (every scene with her shows she can look after herself) hes a realist who knows that if its not written in the law that there will be people that argue that the current laws don't provide that protection. And even if the law exists theres no guarantee it will work, take the exchange regarding pay, theres a law saying women and men should be paid equally and Ainsly herself states they aren't
How does she get to identify as an FBI Agent (Sweatshirt) in the White House when she clearly isn’t a member of the FBI?
So, two things - firstly the wage gap is not explicable by claiming that companies are illegally paying women less than men for equal work (the gap is due mostly, these days, due to women working in different fields - if you want to legislate a solution, you'd have to legislate that companies cannot hire any men if they don't have an equal number of women in the exact same job description, and then legislate that pay is based on job description and no other factors including experience/age/hours worked/etc.), but secondly her "slam dunk" at the end was stupid.
Of course your rights come down from the law. Rights are literally limitations on what the law and other citizens may do to you; there's no such thing as equal rights if it's not in the law, be it the Constitution or a federal/state/local statute. That's what made the bill of rights so noteworthy in the first place, it's one of the earliest (not THE earliest, though) examples of a core governing document listing a bunch of rights that citizens have that the government is generally not allowed to violate even if the legislature or executive branch wants (and discussions about how and when they can be limited, such as when Scalia explains that the first amendment is not unlimited, are perfect examples of how EVERYTHING including your rights, ARE man-made and passed down from the government, whether it's the judicial or legislative branch).
Annoying to see people in the comments not get that she was actually completely wrong on this. Not every time a fictional character is given a "slam dunk" in a story do you have to just mindlessly nod along like they must be correct. She was wrong. Of course your rights come from the law in some way (in our case generally the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution), because that's what the rights are - limitations on what the government can do to you.
I can’t believe people actually think this is a sound argument.
Ainsley is missing the point. The ERA is needed because the law treats men and women differently.
Why is it controversial to believe that everyone should be subject to the same laws and not have separate laws based on gender or race? The answer to that is religion. Think of how much Saudi Arabia is criticized for having a law against women driving (and many more laws against their equality to men), but people in the US are too arrogant to recognize they have the same type of discrimination built into their laws which are supported by Supreme Court rulings.
Here's an example: there can be laws made against women going topless while men are allowed to go topless. An obvious double standard. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that this double standard is acceptable. Meanwhile, fat 400 pound men with there ddd man boobs are ok to go topless, while a flat chested woman is subject to arrest. Why is it controversial to say that no one can go topless or that everyone can?
Here's another example: companies are allowed to make rules that require women in certain roles to wear makeup or certain clothing while men in the exact same role are not required to do so. If men can wear a suit and no makeup to a meeting, why can't women do the same?
That's why the ERA is needed. Laws are not equal, and women in the US can be discriminated against just like many women in the middle east are. Anyone that says there is equality in US law is a liar or ignorant.
"require women in certain roles to wear makeup or certain clothing while men in the exact same role are not required to do so" because wearing makeup isn't a thing men typically do? but seriously its not about that its about appearing presentable, as a representative how you look/dress is a reflection on the company, and men do have rules to follow in these situations they just differ by gender because it would be strange for a man to be wearing makeup and a dress, its the same reason dress codes differ by gender, because people are different. the reason why the rules might be more strict on female employees is because they bring in more business. both men and women prefer dealing with women in these roles as they are seen as more compassionate and thus more better at providing good service. where as men in that role can often be assumed to be too aggressive or sleazy
@@corberus3119 If someone does business based on how much makeup a saleswoman is wearing, they are not smart to put it lightly. Unless they are a makeup salesperson, I suppose. I know that people are biased but that's not a good reason for allowing discrimination to continue. There are of course professions that are based on looks like modeling and acting, which are exceptions.
If a profession isn't based on looks then there is no reason to not have a uniform dress policy for everyone. The way to stop people from expecting a random saleswoman to 'typically' be dressed like a high-end call girl is to make it illegal (people can still wear makeup and whatever, it just can't be required only for one gender in a dress code). Then after a couple generations, that will be the new standard. Just like it was controversial when women started wearing pants instead of dresses.
I am not saying that there cannot be dress codes to make employees look presentable, just that there needs to be a single dress code. Boys shouldn't be discriminated against if they want to have long hair, and girls shouldn't be discriminated against if they want to wear a pantsuit instead of a skirt.
Getting back to Ainsley in TWW, her argument is wrong. She says that she is already protected by the 14th amendment but that is false. Laws and rules have been made that target only one gender. Men and women aren't treated equal if different rules apply to them.
It is amusing to me how often the Republican sentiments in the show, especially by Ainsley, have now in present day of 2022 been shown to be wildly foolish
Except they haven't been.
tbh most sentiments on this show are foolish. Incrementalism is hot garbo
It's a TV show. There's no time for a long drawn-out conversation expressing the full argument from both sides.
@@Michael-cf9cjher point being that a new law is unnecessary to protect women assuming that the current laws already work fine, while pointing out that the current law regarding pay doesn't work seems foolish to me
Great scene but she's wrong.
Why is she wrong? Just thought of this video after watching John Oliver last night. Her ideas ring true.
The ERA SOUNDS good, but it undermines the 14th amendment. It is, as she says, redundant.
If we take the 14th amendment seriously, there is no problem.
Women already HAVE rights. This is a fantastic understanding of the issue by Sorkin.
@@matthewcorreia1721 She's wrong because the ERA isn't about equal rights. The Hayden Rider was added specifically to prevent women from dealing with the bad things men deal with. It's literally women are guaranteed all the good things men get, but do not have to deal with any of the bad things that men get.
@@chuckbuford1832 hmm interesting, can you please give a couple of examples?
@@raterNAZ : Chuck is talking about conscription and death. An ERA, and women are drafted if we bring back conscription. That is pretty much a non-starter but it would have to happen if men were ever to be drafted. Women do NOT need (or even want) the ERA. Its pointless. It was created in 1972 by women who could not think deeply. They were insane, irrational, and hysterical. And their arguments should never have been taken seriously and its a very good thing that our Constitution was never amended for this harpy nonsense.
I loved the show, but funny, it showed how sexist democrats are in their first scene when Josh tells Toby Sam is getting his ass kicked by a girl. GiRL. Not a woman.
Not a single thing she said was a reasonable argument 🤣
In other words, “I disagree with her!” OK, tell us why.
Written by a man.
So?
Written by a man who knows more about politics than our current president
and agreed upon by most women of the world. cuz guess what genius. most people in the world aint no damn leftys
@@dianeghazaryan4773 what are you dumb? Did you ask for opinion of most women ?
@@ryanpuckett9525 that's low bar.
gee Ainsley, here in 2024; a 28th Amendment might have retained, ensured i.e. codified your bodily autonomy from your repuplican friends....ha-HA