Bizarre arguments in supreme court decision

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 "

NOTICE: This story was migrated from the old software that used to run Mensactivism.org. Unfortunately, user comments did not get included in the migration. However, you may view a copy of the original story, with comments, at the following link:

http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/03/05/31/161208.shtml