Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Not gonna lie, this actually presents a pretty fascinating case maybe?
If a male Uber driver claims discrimination on the basis of sex due to Uber’s decision to allow this, but not allow the inverse, would that hold up in court?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Constitutionally its not a problem unless this provides a financial advantage and if anything its probably a disadvantage to both the passenger and driver. The issue would come with the civil rights act and is a reason Ron Paul believes the civil rights act is unconstitutional. There are legitimate reasons to discriminate that arent about hating others. Would a blacks only club not have appeal to black people? Does it really have to be about hating whites. Same with vice versa. Uber will claim this is just about safety and that many of the passengers and drivers might not have even ever used the service if not for that option. The other side will point out that the safety argument is arbitrary as every group does bad shit. At the least I would think there should be an option for female only passengers for male drivers if the claim is that men are dangerous. Then they say no its not about violence its about sexual violence. So they will be asked if straight men can get an option to not take gay men. Which will obviously be denied. My guess is Uber agrees to provide an equivalent option for men when they asses that the legal bill for fighting it will be far greater than the cost to make the equivalent option for men.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
With the Supreme Courts recent ruling on Birthright Citizenship the gutting of the 14th amendment from this court is just appalling. First they rule that we need the consent of the co-conspirators of an insurrection to enact the DQ clause effectively making it worthless. If they let the South vote on it it never would have passed in the first place. So how was it ever supposed to be used? To keep Joe Exotic from running if he tried to overthrow the government? The Birthright citizenship one is just stupidly retarded and is going to cause nothing but chaos because it will eventually be reversed. I would not generally advocate for lower courts to ignore precedent by a higher court but they cant honor their oath they took and rule someone born in the US isnt a US citizen. I can only imagine the cost of the future lawsuits when this is overturned.
Um, it’s not the cheapest option, is it? Are they just gonna get done in by discriminatory pricing from the jump? I don’t care in any way whatsoever, but I don’t think this is gonna work?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Now the fun part. How do they define a woman.
57Brave
Well-known member
judiciarydems
45m
You can’t use race as a factor in college admissions.But you CAN use race
as a pretext to arrest and disappear people.
This Supreme Court ruling is backwards.
sharimsjw
1h
The Republican members of the Supreme Court are horrid people
.And yes, all 6 of them are Republicans. We should say it.
45m
You can’t use race as a factor in college admissions.But you CAN use race
as a pretext to arrest and disappear people.
This Supreme Court ruling is backwards.
sharimsjw
1h
The Republican members of the Supreme Court are horrid people
.And yes, all 6 of them are Republicans. We should say it.
57Brave
Well-known member
It makes me laugh out loud at those thar tote water fot the GOP and swear up and down their independent thought and their disdain for GOP.
Reminds me a few years back when no one here was a follower of Rush Limbaugh but somehow some way repeated his spew.
Unwittingly.
Funny in that the same lame school of thought spouts, defends Trump rhetoric ---policies
Reminds me a few years back when no one here was a follower of Rush Limbaugh but somehow some way repeated his spew.
Unwittingly.
Funny in that the same lame school of thought spouts, defends Trump rhetoric ---policies
sturg33
I
One makes sense and the other doesn't
You can reasonable predict crime based on race.
You can also reasonably predict IQ... but the colleges are doing the reverse of that...
57Brave
Well-known member
sturg33
I
Yes. Sorry you struggle with data
Well yeah, because of the inescapable tie between race and environment.
No real point in arguing because anything you decide is racial/genetic in nature I can point to the environmental difference and we’ll go around in circles forever.
sturg33
I
It’s not a loser for me though. It’s the same tired argument as The Bell Curve that tried to tie specific factors to genetics rather than environment and it’s genuinely a circular argument. There’s no good way to effectively isolate from the circumstances from the demographics because the two are linked.
Tapate50
Well-known member
He won’t debate it because it’s absolutely not in question
No one under 75 listened to Rush. I’m not sure how you think that’s a gotcha lol
Is common sense not a thing where you come from
No one under 75 listened to Rush. I’m not sure how you think that’s a gotcha lol