Much to get to on this very busy day so lets get started. And we begin with a huge new surge of over 15000 new coronavirus cases reported on just wednesday alone and that news was enough for chinas leadership to oust 2 communist Party Leaders in the who by province in the center of the outbreak the news of those new infections means that indications that the virus was beginning to taper off thats what so many had hoped for is simply not accurate and when it comes to markets they reacted markets down today thanks to concerns that the worst is actually not behind us after all and that Chinas Health commission has reported more than 1300 deaths and now more than 60000 infections aside from the 2 Party Officials who have been ousted in china hundreds of other officials have been paralyzed and dozens were fired for not properly performing their duties during this outbreak. And for more on all of this were joined by boom bust cohosts christiane who is joining us once again from Los Angeles C
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say
When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say