Their health care needs. All right. Im happy to end on that note with apologies to the panel because i had not vetted that question before hand. You did that remarkably well. Join me in thanking ian, justin and jody. ; fort knox was chosen because it was the most impenetrable. There had been lots of gold already transferred there. So the secretary of the treasury gives permission to use a portion of the depository. Tonight, the decision to move americas most important Historical Documents to fort knox on december 26, 1941. First, he has to make the decision, what documents would be there. So he makes this decision very methodically on what is going to go to fort knox. These are considered the most valuable documents in the country. And the magna carta is the document that he has been asked to preserve for the britt for the brits. Tonight on q a. Next, a look at trying to. Top her option we open our phone lines and take a look at the headlines on washington journal. Now a look at with t
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