3 ms·

Yes, but the case presented focused solely on the definition of "sex" in title VII so that's what the court ruled on. As programmers its easy for us to take it

Yes, but the case presented focused solely on the definition of "sex" in title VII so that's what the court ruled on. As programmers its easy for us to take it up to a more abstract level, but in the legal world I guess that's difficult to do.

pc86 6y ago
It's not that it's more difficult to do, it's that you generally don't do it. SCOTUS in particular will not respond to, mention, or address anything even approaching a hypothetical scenario, which is sometimes frustrating when the specifics of a case aren't just ride for larger sweeping changes that society may want. You'll often hear of proponents of one reform or another saying that a given case is perfect for SCOTUS because it lines up very closely with their policy objectives.
- rodw 6y ago
  I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've seen arguments presented to the SCOTUS that are absolutely based on hypotheticals, including hypotheticals introduced by the justices themselves. EDIT: Here's a very recent one: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-s-coronavirus-vaccine-hypothetical-could-be-a-window-into-the-future/ar-BB13HDlP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-s-co...
  - pc86 6y ago
    Yes the justices ask questions around hypotheticals and can ask the attorneys to make arguments based on hypothetical situations the justices present, but they hear only specific cases, not hypothetical ones, and the decisions refer to the specifics of the attorneys' arguments and the case law only.
    - rodw 6y ago
      Of course. There's no court case that is based entirely on a hypothetical. But it seems exceedingly common - especially on the scale of SCOTUS - to abstract a specific event or argument to the more general one. Take constitutional challenge to Obamacare for example. I assume they had to point to someone specific and say "this law violates that person's rights", but they absolutely "considered" and "responded to" the hypothetical in that case.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

pc86 6y ago

It's not that it's more difficult to do, it's that you generally don't do it. SCOTUS in particular will not respond to, mention, or address anything even approaching a hypothetical scenario, which is sometimes frustrating when the specifics of a case aren't just ride for larger sweeping changes that society may want. You'll often hear of proponents of one reform or another saying that a given case is perfect for SCOTUS because it lines up very closely with their policy objectives.

rodw 6y ago
I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've seen arguments presented to the SCOTUS that are absolutely based on hypotheticals, including hypotheticals introduced by the justices themselves. EDIT: Here's a very recent one: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-s-coronavirus-vaccine-hypothetical-could-be-a-window-into-the-future/ar-BB13HDlP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-s-co...
- pc86 6y ago
  Yes the justices ask questions around hypotheticals and can ask the attorneys to make arguments based on hypothetical situations the justices present, but they hear only specific cases, not hypothetical ones, and the decisions refer to the specifics of the attorneys' arguments and the case law only.
  - rodw 6y ago
    Of course. There's no court case that is based entirely on a hypothetical. But it seems exceedingly common - especially on the scale of SCOTUS - to abstract a specific event or argument to the more general one. Take constitutional challenge to Obamacare for example. I assume they had to point to someone specific and say "this law violates that person's rights", but they absolutely "considered" and "responded to" the hypothetical in that case.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]