The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-06-2018, 08:03 AM   #1
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 13,075

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default The civil rights act of 2021

https://thinkprogress.org/the-key-to...-e591232bb7f0/

Quote:
So what could a hypothetical Civil Rights Act of 2021 contain?

A full answer to that question would be quite long — it has, after all, been a long time since Congress made a concerted effort to hunt down and overrule Supreme Court decisions that misread existing statutes. Nevertheless, the following decisions would be ripe for overruling in a Democratic Congress:

Restore the Voting Rights Act: The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively deactivated a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with a history of racial voter suppression to “preclear” new voting laws with officials in Washington, DC, was technically a constitutional decision and could not be outright overruled by Congress. Nevertheless, on its face, Shelby County permits Congress to develop a new formula to determine which states should be subject to federal supervision. A law enacting such a formula would also allow Congress to sanction states such as Wisconsin, which historically were not targeted by the Voting Rights Act, but which have become havens for voter suppression.

Abolish the Supreme Court’s entire forced arbitration jurisprudence: In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act so that “merchants with relatively equal bargaining power” could agree to resolve their disputes through arbitration instead of through potentially more costly litigation. In recent decades, however, the Court reinterpreted this law to permit business to force their workers and customers to sign away their right to sue in a real court, and shunt these workers and consumers into an arbitration system that overwhelmingly favors corporate parties. Some of the Court’s arbitration decisions outright ignore the text of the statute, or even read its words to do the opposite of what they say.

Require religious conservatives to obey the law: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held, for the first time, that religious objectors could refuse to follow federal laws even when that refusal would undermine the rights of third parties. Among other things, Hobby Lobby was at odds with the Supreme Court’s previous decision in United States v. Lee, which held that “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

Restore the law preventing bosses from sexually harassing their subordinates: Federal law provides very robust protections to workers who are harassed by their “supervisor” — often, the employer is automatically liable for such harassment. If a worker is harassed by a mere “co-worker,” however, the company is only liable if they have “been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.” Yet, in Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court defined the word “supervisor” so narrowly that it it practically meaningless. Under Vance, a worker’s boss only counts as a “supervisor” if they have the power to make a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” The problem with this rule is that, in many modern employers, the final power to make such decisions rests with distant human resources offices, not with actual supervisors. (Under Vance, for example, neither my day-to-day editor nor the editor-in-chief of ThinkProgress count as my “supervisor,” even though both of them have the authority to direct every moment of my working day.)

Restore anti-retaliation protections for victims of discrimination: Federal civil rights laws do not simply ban various forms of discrimination, they also prevent employers from retaliating against employees who allege discrimination. As a general rule, victims of discrimination may also prevail in “mixed-motive” suits — that is, if unlawful discrimination is “a motivating factor” in an employer’s decision to sanction an employee, the employer cannot defeat the claim solely by showing that “other factors also motivated” the decision. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, however, the Supreme Court eliminated mixed-motive suits for victims of retaliation.
Restore the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Nassar build on a previous decision, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, which killed mixed motive suits in age discrimination cases.

Again, this is a non-exhaustive list. Even in the best case scenario for Democrats, they will not be able to pass a Civil Rights Act of 1991-style omnibus for at least two years. So there is plenty of time to identify of comprehensive list of Supreme Court decisions that are ripe for congressional override.

There’s also good reason for Democrats to be aggressive in drafting such a list. Omnibus legislation wiping away 30 years of erroneous precedents will send a clear message to the Supreme Court that there’s a new sheriff in town. That may discourage the Court from engaging in similar overreach in the future.
Good read and thanks to GHWBs signing of the civil rights act of 1991. Congress can override the SC.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-06-2018, 08:30 AM   #2
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,279

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

It's pretty sweet how liberals think they can pass a law to force the Supreme Court to reinterpret their interpretation of the Constitution.

Not exactly how it works.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:34 AM   #3
Pontius Pirate
I made a bad call Ripley
 
Pontius Pirate's Avatar
 
Easy Easy Kill Kill Lane Lane

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 8,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's pretty sweet how liberals think they can pass a law to force the Supreme Court to reinterpret their interpretation of the Constitution.

Not exactly how it works.
You mean like the Civil Rights act of 1964?
Pontius Pirate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:35 AM   #4
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 13,075

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's pretty sweet how liberals think they can pass a law to force the Supreme Court to reinterpret their interpretation of the Constitution.

Not exactly how it works.
Read up on the civil rights act of 1991, or try reading the actual article.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:52 AM   #5
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,279

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontius Pirate View Post
You mean like the Civil Rights act of 1964?
It depends on the context of the Supreme Court's reasoning.

If the Supreme Court decides a ruling based on ambiguity or conflict in law, then Congress may address. If their reasoning, however, refers to Constitutional interpretation (ie, Hobby Lobby), nothing Congress can pass will interrupt that interpretation.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:55 AM   #6
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,279

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontius Pirate View Post
You mean like the Civil Rights act of 1964?
And SCOTUS has made Constitutionally-cited modifications to the Civil Rights act of 1964 itself. Congress has no power to overrule.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:55 AM   #7
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 13,075

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It depends on the context of the Supreme Court's reasoning.

If the Supreme Court decides a ruling based on ambiguity or conflict in law, then Congress may address. If their reasoning, however, refers to Constitutional interpretation (ie, Hobby Lobby), nothing Congress can pass will interrupt that interpretation.
You are entitled to your opinion,but when it comes to law the facts don’t support your opinion.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2018, 08:57 AM   #8
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 33,279

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
You are entitled to your opinion,but when it comes to law the facts don’t support your opinion.
Explain how Roe V Wade works, considering abortion was never legalized by vote or law.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Denver Broncos