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
Which is the constitutional inquiry is just a probabilistic inquiry into a persons true i. Q. Score, but true iq scores themselves are a statistical concept. It is the score the you would get on a hypothetical test that has no measurement error. Then this is the point, true iq is not the same as intellectual function. Iq tests themselves, however perfect and maybe dont perfectly capture verses the selection of function. Antigen that argument, but that does not seem to be consistent with your point that a state may establish a kharkov. The person does not qualify. This would not be a standard that would endorse. I believe that in light of the consensus tests that of professional organizations apply that was recognized a score that is above the standard error of measurement of two standard deviations above the mean would be okay. But the point, the converse point is not true which is we know for fact that many, many people who obtain test scores of 7175 in fact have mental retardation. I
Order. Amendment number 1 by mr. Lowenthal of california. Amendment number 2 by mr. Cartwright of pennsylvania. The chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. The Unfinished Business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113 inion 374 by 113374 by the gentleman from california, mr. Lowenthal, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk amendment number 1 printed in part bs before b of house report 113374 offered by mr. Lowenthal of california. The chair a recorded vote has been requested. Those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This will be a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the cl