|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 17, 2015 12:57:54 GMT
What is your evidence, exactly, that there is widespread "pay discrimination in America" today? Perhaps federal guidelines for affirmative action contain no requirements for "the employer to choose a lesser qualified person over a more qualified one"; but that is often the net result, since many employers will bend over backwards to comply with the law, in order to avoid being sued. Your lack of any sympathy for "marginally qualified whites," when compared with "equally qualified blacks," is really very telling. Why, you have declared that the former can easily obtain employment elsewhere; so, no big deal, really, if they are denied employment at "Company A."
Every single study on compensation establishes pay discrimination is wide-spread across American. For example:
Women are almost half of the workforce. They are the equal, if not main, breadwinner in four out of ten families. They receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, on average, women continue to earn considerably less than men. In 2013, female full-time workers made only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 22 percent. Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio.
www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination
When we address disparities in compensation based upon race then study after study has reflected that based upon identical jobs, equal education, and equal qualificastion blacks only receive about 60% of the compensation when compared to whites.
There is extensive documentation from hundreds of studies of anti-black discrimination in employment in America while there has never been a single study that established anti-white discrimination in employment.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 18, 2015 21:37:19 GMT
What is your evidence, exactly, that there is widespread "pay discrimination in America" today? Perhaps federal guidelines for affirmative action contain no requirements for "the employer to choose a lesser qualified person over a more qualified one"; but that is often the net result, since many employers will bend over backwards to comply with the law, in order to avoid being sued. Your lack of any sympathy for "marginally qualified whites," when compared with "equally qualified blacks," is really very telling. Why, you have declared that the former can easily obtain employment elsewhere; so, no big deal, really, if they are denied employment at "Company A."
Every single study on compensation establishes pay discrimination is wide-spread across American. For example:
Women are almost half of the workforce. They are the equal, if not main, breadwinner in four out of ten families. They receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, on average, women continue to earn considerably less than men. In 2013, female full-time workers made only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 22 percent. Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio.
www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination
When we address disparities in compensation based upon race then study after study has reflected that based upon identical jobs, equal education, and equal qualificastion blacks only receive about 60% of the compensation when compared to whites.
There is extensive documentation from hundreds of studies of anti-black discrimination in employment in America while there has never been a single study that established anti-white discrimination in employment.
In some ways, women are typically more well-grounded than men are. For example, whereas it is important--for most members of both genders--to have an adequate amount of money, women typically balance this with other priorities; such as, say, starting (and caring for) a family. So women may drop out of the workforce for awhile, for this very reason; and are therefore unlikely to have as much seniority as their husbands do. This tends to skew the numbers. So I am really much more interested in individual (provable) cases of discrimination--either by gender or by race--than I am in mere numbers... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 19, 2015 15:13:30 GMT
In some ways, women are typically more well-grounded than men are. For example, whereas it is important--for most members of both genders--to have an adequate amount of money, women typically balance this with other priorities; such as, say, starting (and caring for) a family. So women may drop out of the workforce for awhile, for this very reason; and are therefore unlikely to have as much seniority as their husbands do. This tends to skew the numbers. So I am really much more interested in individual (provable) cases of discrimination--either by gender or by race--than I am in mere numbers...
You pretend that the studies don't take all of the variables into account but they do. When wage comparison studies are done it is based upon the same senority, same education, same work experience, and same job being performed.
In short your "interest" is only in cases of self-incrimination where it is "provable" as opposed to the much more common forms of discrimination where self-incrimination is not evident. How many cases do you actually believe exist where the employer will write down on the employee record "Pay is determined by gender"? How many cases do you think exist where an employer will write on a black person's application for employment "Denied because they're black"?
As I noted previously, over time since the Equal Pay Act was passed, it's been shown that "self-incrimination" alone does not provide an adequate foundation for lawsuits over pay discrimination and we need to expand that legal foundation for these lawsuits if we're to reduce pay discrimination that is documented by every study done on the subject. It is one thing to make an act illegal but if there is a lack of foundation for proving the illegal act occurred then the initial law is worthless. Congress needs to expand the foundation for bringing wage discrimination lawsuits because the existing criteria fails to adequately address the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 20, 2015 19:40:28 GMT
In some ways, women are typically more well-grounded than men are. For example, whereas it is important--for most members of both genders--to have an adequate amount of money, women typically balance this with other priorities; such as, say, starting (and caring for) a family. So women may drop out of the workforce for awhile, for this very reason; and are therefore unlikely to have as much seniority as their husbands do. This tends to skew the numbers. So I am really much more interested in individual (provable) cases of discrimination--either by gender or by race--than I am in mere numbers...
You pretend that the studies don't take all of the variables into account but they do. When wage comparison studies are done it is based upon the same senority, same education, same work experience, and same job being performed.
In short your "interest" is only in cases of self-incrimination where it is "provable" as opposed to the much more common forms of discrimination where self-incrimination is not evident. How many cases do you actually believe exist where the employer will write down on the employee record "Pay is determined by gender"? How many cases do you think exist where an employer will write on a black person's application for employment "Denied because they're black"?
As I noted previously, over time since the Equal Pay Act was passed, it's been shown that "self-incrimination" alone does not provide an adequate foundation for lawsuits over pay discrimination and we need to expand that legal foundation for these lawsuits if we're to reduce pay discrimination that is documented by every study done on the subject. It is one thing to make an act illegal but if there is a lack of foundation for proving the illegal act occurred then the initial law is worthless. Congress needs to expand the foundation for bringing wage discrimination lawsuits because the existing criteria fails to adequately address the problem.
Your argument is essentially one gigantic red herring. I certainly never claimed--nor did I ever imply--that employers must "write" down their intent to discriminate, based upon race or gender, in order to prove the matter. But I am very uneasy about a law that would, essentially, establish quotas--even if its proponents may feverishly claim that it would not--in order to obviate any such discrimination. In fact, your mocking of my assertion that cases of discrimination should be "provable" helps establish this very point. (Let me just say, unequivocally, that it is not even possible to discriminate against an entire class of people. Individuals may, indeed, be discriminated against. But that is the one and only form of discrimination that may exist. Period.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 21, 2015 13:11:15 GMT
Your argument is essentially one gigantic red herring. I certainly never claimed--nor did I ever imply--that employers must "write" down their intent to discriminate, based upon race or gender, in order to prove the matter. But I am very uneasy about a law that would, essentially, establish quotas--even if its proponents may feverishly claim that it would not--in order to obviate any such discrimination. In fact, your mocking of my assertion that cases of discrimination should be "provable" helps establish this very point. (Let me just say, unequivocally, that it is not even possible to discriminate against an entire class of people. Individuals may, indeed, be discriminated against. But that is the one and only form of discrimination that may exist. Period.)
The problem today is that the legal criteria for a discrimination lawsuit is so high that few cases are ever heard. If we want to stop or reduce discrimination then we must provide a legal criteria where the lawsuit can be successful. The citeria for "proving" discrimination must be modified so that lawsuits can succeed. We know that is true because thousands of cases of discrimination occur for every case that is ever addressed by a lawsuit. We know that because of every study done on discrimination.
No one is calling for quotas, least of all me, but we still need the legal criteria that makes it possible for a person that is discriminated against to bring the case before the courts and have a reasonable and fair means of establishing their case. That does not exist today.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 23, 2015 20:54:51 GMT
Your argument is essentially one gigantic red herring. I certainly never claimed--nor did I ever imply--that employers must "write" down their intent to discriminate, based upon race or gender, in order to prove the matter. But I am very uneasy about a law that would, essentially, establish quotas--even if its proponents may feverishly claim that it would not--in order to obviate any such discrimination. In fact, your mocking of my assertion that cases of discrimination should be "provable" helps establish this very point. (Let me just say, unequivocally, that it is not even possible to discriminate against an entire class of people. Individuals may, indeed, be discriminated against. But that is the one and only form of discrimination that may exist. Period.)
The problem today is that the legal criteria for a discrimination lawsuit is so high that few cases are ever heard. If we want to stop or reduce discrimination then we must provide a legal criteria where the lawsuit can be successful. The citeria for "proving" discrimination must be modified so that lawsuits can succeed. We know that is true because thousands of cases of discrimination occur for every case that is ever addressed by a lawsuit. We know that because of every study done on discrimination.
No one is calling for quotas, least of all me, but we still need the legal criteria that makes it possible for a person that is discriminated against to bring the case before the courts and have a reasonable and fair means of establishing their case. That does not exist today.
Exactly what "legal criteria" for establishing race or gender discrimination are just too "high," in your opinion? What would you prefer those criteria to be, instead? And how would this change not lead to (informal) quotas, by encouraging employers to ensure that no "protected class" is being discriminated against--even if white males were discriminated against, as a result? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 24, 2015 9:42:47 GMT
The problem today is that the legal criteria for a discrimination lawsuit is so high that few cases are ever heard. If we want to stop or reduce discrimination then we must provide a legal criteria where the lawsuit can be successful. The citeria for "proving" discrimination must be modified so that lawsuits can succeed. We know that is true because thousands of cases of discrimination occur for every case that is ever addressed by a lawsuit. We know that because of every study done on discrimination.
No one is calling for quotas, least of all me, but we still need the legal criteria that makes it possible for a person that is discriminated against to bring the case before the courts and have a reasonable and fair means of establishing their case. That does not exist today.
Exactly what "legal criteria" for establishing race or gender discrimination are just too "high," in your opinion? What would you prefer those criteria to be, instead? And how would this change not lead to (informal) quotas, by encouraging employers to ensure that no "protected class" is being discriminated against--even if white males were discriminated against, as a result?
I'm not a tort attorney and it would be hard for me to state specifics but what we do know is that there hasn't been much progress in the area of equal pay for women and minority races.
The very fact that there has never been statistical evidence of discrimination against white males leads me to believe it is highly unlikely to ever happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 25, 2015 18:27:37 GMT
Exactly what "legal criteria" for establishing race or gender discrimination are just too "high," in your opinion? What would you prefer those criteria to be, instead? And how would this change not lead to (informal) quotas, by encouraging employers to ensure that no "protected class" is being discriminated against--even if white males were discriminated against, as a result?
I'm not a tort attorney and it would be hard for me to state specifics but what we do know is that there hasn't been much progress in the area of equal pay for women and minority races.
The very fact that there has never been statistical evidence of discrimination against white males leads me to believe it is highly unlikely to ever happen.
There has never, in the past, been "statistical evidence of discrimination against white males" precisely because--sadly--white males were typically favored. But a new system--one that favors nonwhites and non-males--would very likely result in employers bending over backwards to not be accused of discrimination against any "protected class" of people. That is just common sense. As for "equal pay" for women, the same number that has been bandied about for several decades now--"76 cents on the dollar"--does not take into account that men and women often pursue different career paths, with men being typically more determined to make a lot of money, and women preferring a career that is emotionally satisfying. It also does not take into account comparative work experience; and women are much more likely to drop out of the job market temporarily, in order to rear a family. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 26, 2015 13:37:36 GMT
I'm not a tort attorney and it would be hard for me to state specifics but what we do know is that there hasn't been much progress in the area of equal pay for women and minority races.
The very fact that there has never been statistical evidence of discrimination against white males leads me to believe it is highly unlikely to ever happen.
There has never, in the past, been "statistical evidence of discrimination against white males" precisely because--sadly--white males were typically favored. But a new system--one that favors nonwhites and non-males--would very likely result in employers bending over backwards to not be accused of discrimination against any "protected class" of people. That is just common sense. As for "equal pay" for women, the same number that has been bandied about for several decades now--"76 cents on the dollar"--does not take into account that men and women often pursue different career paths, with men being typically more determined to make a lot of money, and women preferring a career that is emotionally satisfying. It also does not take into account comparative work experience; and women are much more likely to drop out of the job market temporarily, in order to rear a family.
Your comments reflect two misconcpetions often held by the right-wing political ideology.
Ending discrimination against one group does not create discrimination against another group. Yes, historically in employment "white male favoritism" has existed (and still exists) but but ending it does not create discrimination against white males. When two applicants, one black and one white, both apply for a job and they have virtually identical resumes covering education and job experience, and when they both interview virtually the same, then it should be a coin toss as to who gets the job. What we know from the 2003 study on employment discrimination is that not only is that not the case but, in fact, that the "white favoritism" prevails in a vast majority of cases.
No one is asking employers to engage in discriminatory favoritism for blacks but instead to end discriminatory favoritism for whites.
Republicans often try to rationalize the pay discrepancies between men and women based upon "different employment, career goals, and objectives" but the studies on gender pay discrimination have taken that all into account. The discrepancies are based upon the identical jobs and employees with the same background in education and job experience. They studies are not comparing a male engineer with a housekeeper or waitress. Boeing did an internal study of their own aerospace mechanical engineers and they found that there was pay discrimination in within the company between men and women and they raised the women's compesation.
Boeing had a large enough work force to be able to do a comparative study but most companies have that large of a workforce so the wage disparities remain. For smaller companies the study needs to be focused across several companies before a statistically relevant result can be derived and acted upon. If you require 1,000 employees working in exactly the same job then you need to do the study over enough companies so that 1,000 employees are in the study. Few companies have 1,000 "mechanical engineers" for statistical purposes. As I recall the recent proposal to revise the Equal Pay Act was to allow statistical analysis across numberous companies so that pay discrimination within the group could be used for litigation purposes.
Is that the right solution? I can't say but at least it is a potential solution while doing nothing is not solving anything at all.
Bottom line - 1. Ending white male favoritism in employment is not discriminatory. 2. Equal pay for women does not reduce compensation for men.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 26, 2015 13:44:43 GMT
I'm not a tort attorney and it would be hard for me to state specifics but what we do know is that there hasn't been much progress in the area of equal pay for women and minority races.
The very fact that there has never been statistical evidence of discrimination against white males leads me to believe it is highly unlikely to ever happen.
There has never, in the past, been "statistical evidence of discrimination against white males" precisely because--sadly--white males were typically favored. But a new system--one that favors nonwhites and non-males--would very likely result in employers bending over backwards to not be accused of discrimination against any "protected class" of people. That is just common sense. As for "equal pay" for women, the same number that has been bandied about for several decades now--"76 cents on the dollar"--does not take into account that men and women often pursue different career paths, with men being typically more determined to make a lot of money, and women preferring a career that is emotionally satisfying. It also does not take into account comparative work experience; and women are much more likely to drop out of the job market temporarily, in order to rear a family.
Your comments reflect to misconcpetions often held by the right-wing political ideology.
Ending discrimination against one group does not create discrimination against another group. Yes, historically in employment "white male favoritism" has existed (and still exists) but but ending it does not create discrimination against white males. When two applicants, one black and one white, both apply for a job and they have virtually identical resumes covering education and job experience, and when they both interview virtually the same, then it should be a coin toss as to who gets the job. What we know from the 2003 study on employment discrimination is that not only is that not the case but, in fact, that the "white favoritism" prevails in a vast majority of cases.
No one is asking employers to engage in discriminatory favoritism for blacks but instead to end discriminatory favoritism for whites.
Republicans often try to rationalize the pay discrepancies between men and women based upon "different employment, career goals, and objectives" but the studies on gender pay discrimination have taken that all into account. The discrepancies are based upon the identical jobs and employees with the same background in education and job experience. They studies are not comparing a male engineer with a housekeeper or waitress. Boeing did an internal study of their own aerospace mechanical engineers and they found that there was pay discrimination in within the company between men and women and they raised the women's compesation.
Boeing had a large enough work force to be able to do a comparative study but most companies have that large of a workforce so the wage disparities remain. For smaller companies the study needs to be focused across several companies before a statistically relevant result can be derived and acted upon. If you require 1,000 employees working in exactly the same job then you need to do the study over enough companies so that 1,000 employees are in the study. Few companies have 1,000 "mechanical engineers" for statistical purposes. As I recall the recent proposal to revise the Equal Pay Act was to allow statistical analysis across numberous companies so that pay discrimination within the group could be used for litigation purposes.
Is that the right solution? I can't say but at least it is a potential solution while doing nothing is not solving anything at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Feb 27, 2015 21:50:23 GMT
There has never, in the past, been "statistical evidence of discrimination against white males" precisely because--sadly--white males were typically favored. But a new system--one that favors nonwhites and non-males--would very likely result in employers bending over backwards to not be accused of discrimination against any "protected class" of people. That is just common sense. As for "equal pay" for women, the same number that has been bandied about for several decades now--"76 cents on the dollar"--does not take into account that men and women often pursue different career paths, with men being typically more determined to make a lot of money, and women preferring a career that is emotionally satisfying. It also does not take into account comparative work experience; and women are much more likely to drop out of the job market temporarily, in order to rear a family.
Your comments reflect two misconcpetions often held by the right-wing political ideology.
Ending discrimination against one group does not create discrimination against another group. Yes, historically in employment "white male favoritism" has existed (and still exists) but but ending it does not create discrimination against white males. When two applicants, one black and one white, both apply for a job and they have virtually identical resumes covering education and job experience, and when they both interview virtually the same, then it should be a coin toss as to who gets the job. What we know from the 2003 study on employment discrimination is that not only is that not the case but, in fact, that the "white favoritism" prevails in a vast majority of cases.
No one is asking employers to engage in discriminatory favoritism for blacks but instead to end discriminatory favoritism for whites.
Republicans often try to rationalize the pay discrepancies between men and women based upon "different employment, career goals, and objectives" but the studies on gender pay discrimination have taken that all into account. The discrepancies are based upon the identical jobs and employees with the same background in education and job experience. They studies are not comparing a male engineer with a housekeeper or waitress. Boeing did an internal study of their own aerospace mechanical engineers and they found that there was pay discrimination in within the company between men and women and they raised the women's compesation.
Boeing had a large enough work force to be able to do a comparative study but most companies have that large of a workforce so the wage disparities remain. For smaller companies the study needs to be focused across several companies before a statistically relevant result can be derived and acted upon. If you require 1,000 employees working in exactly the same job then you need to do the study over enough companies so that 1,000 employees are in the study. Few companies have 1,000 "mechanical engineers" for statistical purposes. As I recall the recent proposal to revise the Equal Pay Act was to allow statistical analysis across numberous companies so that pay discrimination within the group could be used for litigation purposes.
Is that the right solution? I can't say but at least it is a potential solution while doing nothing is not solving anything at all.
Bottom line - 1. Ending white male favoritism in employment is not discriminatory. 2. Equal pay for women does not reduce compensation for men.
I think you are confusing pure theory with actual practice. In actual practice, affirmative-action plans tend to induce employers to bend over backwards, in order to avoid the mere appearance of discriminating against a "protected class" of employees. And I am foursquare opposed to the very idea of our having any "protected class" of citizens--regardless of any statistical studies. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 3, 2015 13:27:23 GMT
I think you are confusing pure theory with actual practice. In actual practice, affirmative-action plans tend to induce employers to bend over backwards, in order to avoid the mere appearance of discriminating against a "protected class" of employees. And I am foursquare opposed to the very idea of our having any "protected class" of citizens--regardless of any statistical studies.
The seven employers I worked for over the last 35 years of my career were all Affirmative Action employers and none of them bent over backwards when it came to equal employment opportunities for women or minorities. As noted though Boeing did do an internal study on compensation and made some corrective action changes because they found pay discrimination for women but that merely reflected an on-going committment to equality in employment for their workforce.
In point of fact Affirmative Action does not create a "protected class" of workers but instead attempts to remove privileges inherently granted to white men in employment. I'm very familiar with how Affirmative Action works and it does not create a preference for minorities or women in employment. It makes ever attempt to remove preferential treatment in the employment and compensation processes. Perhaps you've never really been exposed to AA in action and instead have been deceived by right-wing propaganda about it.
My position would be that opposing a "protected class" and "privileged class" are equally important.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 4, 2015 19:29:34 GMT
I think you are confusing pure theory with actual practice. In actual practice, affirmative-action plans tend to induce employers to bend over backwards, in order to avoid the mere appearance of discriminating against a "protected class" of employees. And I am foursquare opposed to the very idea of our having any "protected class" of citizens--regardless of any statistical studies.
The seven employers I worked for over the last 35 years of my career were all Affirmative Action employers and none of them bent over backwards when it came to equal employment opportunities for women or minorities. As noted though Boeing did do an internal study on compensation and made some corrective action changes because they found pay discrimination for women but that merely reflected an on-going committment to equality in employment for their workforce.
In point of fact Affirmative Action does not create a "protected class" of workers but instead attempts to remove privileges inherently granted to white men in employment. I'm very familiar with how Affirmative Action works and it does not create a preference for minorities or women in employment. It makes ever attempt to remove preferential treatment in the employment and compensation processes. Perhaps you've never really been exposed to AA in action and instead have been deceived by right-wing propaganda about it.
My position would be that opposing a "protected class" and "privileged class" are equally important.
Unlike you, I really do not view white males as a "privileged class." If some companies have discriminated against women and/or minorities in pay and/or promotions, that is certainly reprehensible; and it should be corrected, forthwith. But I am much more easily convinced by particular examples of discrimination than I am by "statistical studies" purporting to show discrimination. As for your assertion that affirmative action "does not create a 'protected class' of workers," Wikipedia says the following: |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 5, 2015 12:24:12 GMT
Unlike you, I really do not view white males as a "privileged class." If some companies have discriminated against women and/or minorities in pay and/or promotions, that is certainly reprehensible; and it should be corrected, forthwith. But I am much more easily convinced by particular examples of discrimination than I am by "statistical studies" purporting to show discrimination. As for your assertion that affirmative action "does not create a 'protected class' of workers," Wikipedia says the following:
Not being discriminated against in America is a privilege that only white males enjoy. Virtually all other Americans are discriminated against.
If you read the laws you mention you will find that they state that they prohibit discrimination based upon all of the above criteria and do not create any special "classes" of people. For example all people can be considered as falling into the group of "race" and discrimination based upon race is prohibited under the law. That doesn't prevent the discrimination of course.
A law prohibiting discrimination does not create a special class of people. The law merely prohibits these in the group from being treated differently from those not in the group so the law fundamentally addressess everyone either in the group or outside of the group.
**************************************
Returning somewhat to the original thread topic (Obamacare funding) did you follow the news on King v. Burwell case heard by the Supreme Court yesterday?
I found one point very interesting as the issue of "standing" by the plaintiffs was addressed initially but the defense waived it off not wanting the case to be dismissed due to a possible lack of standing. The explanation of why the Obama admistration wouldn't want to "win the case" based upon a lack of standing by the plaintiffs was interesting. If the case was dismissed due to a lack of standing then it could be readdressed by a future lawsuit and if that occurred under a Republican adminstration the admistration could refuse to defend Obamacare before the Supreme Court. The Obama adminstration didn't want that to happen and was relatively confident it would win the case.
Based upon the questions by the Supreme Court justices, predominately Kagan and Kennedy (a swing vote) it appears the plaintiffs are doomed to lose. Roberts, another swing vote, was apparently silent during the oral arguments and gave no indication of how he might lean on the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 6, 2015 21:07:12 GMT
Unlike you, I really do not view white males as a "privileged class." If some companies have discriminated against women and/or minorities in pay and/or promotions, that is certainly reprehensible; and it should be corrected, forthwith. But I am much more easily convinced by particular examples of discrimination than I am by "statistical studies" purporting to show discrimination. As for your assertion that affirmative action "does not create a 'protected class' of workers," Wikipedia says the following:
Not being discriminated against in America is a privilege that only white males enjoy. Virtually all other Americans are discriminated against.
If you read the laws you mention you will find that they state that they prohibit discrimination based upon all of the above criteria and do not create any special "classes" of people. For example all people can be considered as falling into the group of "race" and discrimination based upon race is prohibited under the law. That doesn't prevent the discrimination of course.
A law prohibiting discrimination does not create a special class of people. The law merely prohibits these in the group from being treated differently from those not in the group so the law fundamentally addressess everyone either in the group or outside of the group.
**************************************
Returning somewhat to the original thread topic (Obamacare funding) did you follow the news on King v. Burwell case heard by the Supreme Court yesterday?
I found one point very interesting as the issue of "standing" by the plaintiffs was addressed initially but the defense waived it off not wanting the case to be dismissed due to a possible lack of standing. The explanation of why the Obama admistration wouldn't want to "win the case" based upon a lack of standing by the plaintiffs was interesting. If the case was dismissed due to a lack of standing then it could be readdressed by a future lawsuit and if that occurred under a Republican adminstration the admistration could refuse to defend Obamacare before the Supreme Court. The Obama adminstration didn't want that to happen and was relatively confident it would win the case.
Based upon the questions by the Supreme Court justices, predominately Kagan and Kennedy (a swing vote) it appears the plaintiffs are doomed to lose. Roberts, another swing vote, was apparently silent during the oral arguments and gave no indication of how he might lean on the case.
Well, Wikipedia explicitly states that these laws create protected classes of workers. As usual, Anthony Kennedy will probably be the swing vote in King v. Burwell. And I heard that his comments were caustic toward both sides; so that one might easily read his predisposition either way one might prefer. |
|
