• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

The case involved the interpretation of a statute.

Lots of issues on both sides of the aisle recently concerning statutory interpretation and constitutional distinctions. Fell down a conservative twitter rabbit hole lamenting how if Gorsuch goes with liberals on title VII concerning trans folks it would be unconstitutional and undermining the founding father’s intent. Painful.
 
On no topic is it more obvious that you left-wing hyperventilators get your “news” from hyperventilating left-wing news outlets than in coverage of the SCOTUS.

Patterson involved a Seventh Day Adventist who was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays due to his religious beliefs. He alleged his employer failed to accommodate his religion. The standard for evaluating such claims is whether the proposed accommodation—here, exempting him from work on Saturdays—would impose more than a de minimus burden on his employer. If so, no accommodation is required.

The de minimus standard has been criticized since adopted in 1977. There are scores of law review articles on why it is an incorrect interpretation of Title VII. I won’t go into all the reasons, but one I find compelling is that the Americans with Disabilities Act uses the exact same language as Title VII but the standard under the ADA is much more onerous on employers. Moreover, why should we treat religious accommodation any differently from disability accommodation?

I think these are interesting questions, but the case has literally nothing to do with a “First Amendment right of businesses and government contractors to discriminate against LBTQ people on the basis of religion.” Nothing.

That’s either fear-mongering (which appears to have worked) or the dumbest commentator I’ve read in a long time.

Why did you leave out the G ? Makes you wonder.
 
i'm here to discuss the overturn of the Bob Richards rule in consolidated tax refund allocation cases. I assume we'll have a robust discussion.
 
Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's case to kill ACA. Too bad they won't rule on it before the election. It could decide the election if they take healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans.
 
Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's case to kill ACA. Too bad they won't rule on it before the election. It could decide the election if they take healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans.

Democrats should be running ads nonstop saying Trump is trying to take away your health insurance!
 

I've been against any sort of court packing schemes, but at this point it's pretty clear if Democrat's don't do it first that Pubs sure as hell will. So as soon as they get power, I hope Democrats drop the fucking hammer on Pubs and add seats to every court they can and pack them full of evil libruls.
 
I've been against any sort of court packing schemes, but at this point it's pretty clear if Democrat's don't do it first that Pubs sure as hell will. So as soon as they get power, I hope Democrats drop the fucking hammer on Pubs and add seats to every court they can and pack them full of evil libruls.

Yeah it would really help if Dems can get some judges on the courts that actually believe in enforcing the law as it should be enforced, no matter how many seats they have to create.
 
Back
Top