Bizarre arguments in supreme court decision

	posted by Adam on Saturday May 31, @10:00AM from the The-lace-curtain-strikes dept.
	Matt Campbell writes "Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley comments about a recent Supreme Court decision penned by CJ Wm. Rehnquist (or, more aptly, by one of his legal aides) in this column Kinsley points out the sudden change of direction this decision constitutes away from Rehnquist's bias toward state soverignty and instead, in this case, toward pan-state applicability of federal laws regarding employment. While Kinsley never comes out and says it, it is clear that a massive exception in that direction was made in this case dealing with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 because the matter of gender was introduced into it. The decision may very well amount to a good substantive effect: state workers get the same FMLA benefits as federal workers get. But the disturbing thing about the ruling is the overwhelming pro-feminist sentiment in the wording of the decision. Gender issues and speculative opinions are dragged into a ruling wherein it is clearly not even relevant. This is a further example of the degredation of reasoning and retaining principle of scope when applying and interpreting laws in favor of gender-feminist hysteria. I can't help but speculate the aide who actually wrote this decision was a 24-year-old female Harvard Law graduate. The full decision is here "

<  WordSpy's Word of the Day: Alpha Earner | Girls Rule!  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

appalling ignorance of men's lives (Score:0) by Anonymous User on Saturday May 31, @03:03PM EST (#1) Men are forced into wage slave roles much more than women are "forced" into domestic roles. This decision just further convinces me that I should only marry a woman who is ready, willing, and able to support my choice, should I decide I'm interested, to be a stay-at-home father. Women's "career obstacles" are nothing compared to the lack of life choices that men face in marriage.

Get married??? (Score:1) by Dittohd on Saturday May 31, @08:32PM EST (#2) (User #1075 Info) >This decision just further convinces me that I should only marry a woman who is ready, willing, and able to support my choice, should I decide I'm interested, to be a stay-at-home father. Get married? Be a stay-at-home father? Ha ha! What about after you marry and she changes her mind about your division of responsibilities, when she decides to become a little more conservative and old fashioned? Think anyone's going to be the least bit understanding towards the arrangement you two talked about before marrying? Ha! Remember the ruling word in the female lexicon... Choice! (for women only, of course!). The way all the laws are written in favor of women these days, the way courts consistently rule against men in favor of women, and based on most people's attitudes these days against men due to the consistent brainwashing throughout the entire liberal media system, any man in American who allows a woman to convince him to marry ("Wow! This sex is great! Let's lock this in before she changes her mind!") or shame him into marrying ("Afraid to commit?") should either have his head examined or get a complete transplant. The man gets all the responsibility and committment and the woman gets all the choice... no matter what the circumstance. I suggest a lot of research and rereading on this site and other male activisism sites before choosing to marry. Unless you're a masochist, of course. I realize there are a lot of men out there who like to be dominated and made a complete fool of by women. It turns them on! Are you one of them? Lots o' luck. Sounds like you're already brainwashed beyond repair. This note is for all others who aren't that far gone yet. Dittohd

[an error occurred while processing this directive]