Society Dean News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana
Stay updated with breaking news from Society dean. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Top News In Society Dean Today - Breaking & Trending Today
Welcome to the Cato Institute. I am the director for the center for constitutional studies and together with the Federalist Society, we are hosting todays forum. I want to thank the Federalist Society dean and julie who are with us today for their assistance in organizing the forum and also want to welcome those that are seeing us through cspan and our live stream audience as well. We are here to discuss an important subject, the Permission Society, the title of a new book by the Goldwater Institute tim sandefur, the Permission Society how the ruling class turns our freedoms into privileges and what we can do about it. This book docume ....
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 ....