Quote:

---

A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.

The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.

“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

9-0. Even Wakanda Forever is voting against Ted and what Ted's party tells Ted that Ted wants.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

9-0. Even Wakanda Forever is voting against Ted and what Ted's party tells Ted that Ted wants.

---

6ix, you didn't read the decision. If you had, and understood it, which is too much to expect from a Trumptard, you'd know that everything you wrote about it was bullshit because you are too vapidly articulate for your own good. I agree 100% with the 9-0 decision because I read the decision and understood it.

From the decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf

Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision bars employers from intentionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The text of Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. The provision focuses on individuals rather than groups, barring discrimination against “any individual” because of protected characteristics. Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.

The Court of Appeals explicitly held that “Ames is heterosexual. . . which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.”

All nine justices on the Supreme Court told the Court of Appeals that their special requirement, their new rule (the “background circumstances” rule) was bullshit. I agree. The Court of Appeals’ reasoning was bullshit.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Oh. Glad to see that what is left of the decimated Democratic constituency wants to at least pretend like they're adults in 2025 again.

Sounds like more winning to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You won't hear an argument out of me on that decision.

It's the first time I've seen a Democrat behave like an adult for a very long time.

Good for her.




I'd like for somebody to ask her again what a Woman is in 2025.

Hopefully she has the right answer and doesn't need to consult a Harvard biologist first, otherwise nobody can use the word Sensible in the same sentence as her name without being laughed out of the room.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You won't hear an argument out of me on that decision.

It's the first time I've seen a Democrat behave like an adult for a very long time.

Good for her.




I'd like for somebody to ask her again what a Woman is in 2025.

Hopefully she has the right answer and doesn't need to consult a Harvard biologist first, otherwise nobody can use the word Sensible in the same sentence as her name without being laughed out of the room.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

---

I can tell you still have not even tried to understand what this case is really about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
It comes down to a simple idea, expressed in the opinion: Would you lower court judges please stop using confusing rules? Pretty please with sugar on top? The case is not about reverse discrimination, but it seems to be only because of a confusing legal rule that lower court judges should stop using since even they get tripped up by the rule.

This Court has further explained that a plaintiff need not satisfy the first step of the [McDonnell Douglas] framework at trial. And, we have strongly suggested that the framework should not be referenced in jury instructions because it is too confusing.

The McDonnell Douglas framework has been on the books for over 50 years now, and courts still report “continuing confusion.” That those who have carefully grappled with the framework for decades cannot make sense of it suggests that the framework is unworkable.

In the meantime, litigants and lower courts are free to proceed without the McDonnell Douglas framework. This Court has never required anyone to use it. And, district courts are well equipped to resolve summary judgment motions without it. Every day—and in almost every context except the Title VII context—district courts across the country resolve summary judgment motions by applying the straightforward text of Rule 56. In my view, it might behoove courts and litigants to take that same approach in Title VII cases.

Atextual, judge-created legal rules have a tendency to generate complexity, confusion, and erroneous results. I am pleased that the Court correctly rejects the atextual “background circumstances” rule today.

---