Judicial interpretation is generally is embroiled in a partisan fight over originalism vs. substantive/contextual/... canons. The most recent case of the Suprem

Judicial interpretation is generally is embroiled in a partisan fight over originalism vs. substantive/contextual/... canons. The most recent case of the Supreme Court rejecting "plain meaning" was Obamacare, where it was decided that "State" in "an Exchange established by the State" also includes those established by the federal government. But I doubt you'll even need to show that the EO started with the wish to implement a Muslim Ban, because it is doubtful that their efforts to soften it until it is legal were successful. As an analogy: Would a company policy never to employ a woman born in odd-numbered years be discriminatory? If you insist on "no, because it doesn't discriminate against all women", how about a policy against hiring any women who's current age is even? That must then also be non-discriminatory, right? Now what if a company were to implement both policies? Can two non-discriminatory policies add up to something discriminatory?