Re: 2018 midterm elections catch-all thread
If the military adopts physical standards that have a disproportionate impact on keeping women out of certain military occupational specialties, will those standards be considered constitutional or will a federal judge simply outlaw the physical standards? I suspect the latter. And what will the abolition of physical standards do to the performance of American infantry in combat?
Can a state (or even a private company) offer maternity leave to female employees, but not male employees if the disproportionate impact is to give women time off but not men? And you can't say "yes, if a man can get pregnant and carry a baby to term," because the impact or that law will be disproportionately pro-women.
This amendment is going to be a mess to implement and what the ratifiers intended in ratifying will be irrelevant when it gets into a federal court. This amendment will spawn a century of court cases as federal judges come to some kind of consensus for us as to what this amendment means in practice.
On the contrary. Alabama will officially be irrelevant in the process once the Virginia General Assembly ratifies the ERA and the amendment is adopted and applies to all states equally even the refuseniks like Alabama. The challenge of working out the details what exactly that amendment means will become a nationwide contest that could take a century to work out in the courts.
If the military adopts physical standards that have a disproportionate impact on keeping women out of certain military occupational specialties, will those standards be considered constitutional or will a federal judge simply outlaw the physical standards? I suspect the latter. And what will the abolition of physical standards do to the performance of American infantry in combat?
Can a state (or even a private company) offer maternity leave to female employees, but not male employees if the disproportionate impact is to give women time off but not men? And you can't say "yes, if a man can get pregnant and carry a baby to term," because the impact or that law will be disproportionately pro-women.
This amendment is going to be a mess to implement and what the ratifiers intended in ratifying will be irrelevant when it gets into a federal court. This amendment will spawn a century of court cases as federal judges come to some kind of consensus for us as to what this amendment means in practice.
Last edited:
