4 ms·

My expectation is 5-4 with kavanaugh dissenting to majority to keep affirmative action in place. Kavanaugh explicitly has only female clerks in order to help re

My expectation is 5-4 with kavanaugh dissenting to majority to keep affirmative action in place. Kavanaugh explicitly has only female clerks in order to help resolve the systemic inequality, so ideologically I would expect him to go for it.

CamperBob2 4y ago
Kavanaugh explicitly has only female clerks in order to help resolve the systemic inequality Well, that could certainly be one reason.
- justahuman74 4y ago
  Choosing to only hire from one gender seems like discrimination
  - OJFord 4y ago
    'affirmative action' (sometimes 'positive action', 'positive discrimination') per the title is exactly that - discriminating the 'other' way to try to balance the scales as it were. (I'm not saying it's good, personally I think it's a bad approach to a good goal. Would likely never be in my favour though, so pinch of salt etc.)
    - headsoup 4y ago
      It's going to work initially, but I've never seen it have the clause that 'this will result in equality once we hit the correct percentages' or that 'AA will finish at this point' because that second stage is difficult and will rip off the band-aid.
    - MarkMc 4y ago
      Isn't that illegal when it comes to hiring employees?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - OJFord 4y ago
        Of course that varies by jurisdiction, but yes the UK, EU states, and US have a (variously termed) concept of 'protected characteristics' that cannot be considered in hiring. I agree with you, I don't see how affirmative action is compatible with it, whatever one's thoughts on it, but it seems to be an area nobody's wanted to touch. (Consider that you'd have to be the non-marginialised, thinking yourself wrongfully not-hired. Hard to imagine - in the UK - political appetite for it as a state lawsuit or regulation.) I wouldn't be surprised to see it blow up at some point though.
throwthere 4y ago
you could be right, but aren’t they looking more towards constitutionality, then their own ideologies?
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Sure, but cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug
- chihuahua 4y ago
  Or maybe everyone is guided by their own ideologies, covered up with a thin veneer of constitutional arguments.
tylermenezes 4y ago
Sure that's an explanation for that. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavana...
- whatshisface 4y ago
  That could be a true allegation, but by making it without evidence you're creating a standard that someone could only satisfy by hiring only men. None of those guys actually care about affirmative action, they're doing it as a fig leaf of civic-mindedness, and that means they'll drop it instantly if their reputations would ever be better off without it.
- O__________O 4y ago
  No additional information, but if you Google images of his clerks and then for images of the source for that claim, only one that appears to be trying to look like a model is the source.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Kavanuagh was working within the system, or at least able to find a rationale within it. It doesn't mean a) that he agrees with the system b) that he can't find another way to reach the same result in a new system
- endisneigh 4y ago
  He believes the issue is that there are too few women who are clerks in the highest courts. It’s the fastest way to contribute to the perceived resolution of the issue from his point of view.
scarmig 4y ago
Interestingly, he only brings on pretty girls, to the point where people advise interviewees to sex themselves up a bit for interviews with him. Thank God he's fighting systemic oppression.
rayiner 4y ago
Note that Title VII, banning discrimination in employment, doesn’t apply to judiciary employees, which law clerks are. Since the Harvard case involves Title VI (a parallel provision relating to discrimination in education) that’s a significant distinction.
miffy900 4y ago
Most courts try to limit the scope of their rulings as much as possible though. If the case before them only concerned the question of race/ethnicity, and the issue of gender or sex never came up, then Kavanaugh could probably find enough wiggle room to justify joining the other conservative judges and striking it down.

CamperBob2 4y ago

Kavanaugh explicitly has only female clerks in order to help resolve the systemic inequality Well, that could certainly be one reason.

justahuman74 4y ago
Choosing to only hire from one gender seems like discrimination
- OJFord 4y ago
  'affirmative action' (sometimes 'positive action', 'positive discrimination') per the title is exactly that - discriminating the 'other' way to try to balance the scales as it were. (I'm not saying it's good, personally I think it's a bad approach to a good goal. Would likely never be in my favour though, so pinch of salt etc.)
  - headsoup 4y ago
    It's going to work initially, but I've never seen it have the clause that 'this will result in equality once we hit the correct percentages' or that 'AA will finish at this point' because that second stage is difficult and will rip off the band-aid.
  - MarkMc 4y ago
    Isn't that illegal when it comes to hiring employees?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Of course that varies by jurisdiction, but yes the UK, EU states, and US have a (variously termed) concept of 'protected characteristics' that cannot be considered in hiring. I agree with you, I don't see how affirmative action is compatible with it, whatever one's thoughts on it, but it seems to be an area nobody's wanted to touch. (Consider that you'd have to be the non-marginialised, thinking yourself wrongfully not-hired. Hard to imagine - in the UK - political appetite for it as a state lawsuit or regulation.) I wouldn't be surprised to see it blow up at some point though.

throwthere 4y ago

you could be right, but aren’t they looking more towards constitutionality, then their own ideologies?

endisneigh 4y ago
Sure, but cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug
chihuahua 4y ago
Or maybe everyone is guided by their own ideologies, covered up with a thin veneer of constitutional arguments.

tylermenezes 4y ago

Sure that's an explanation for that. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavana...

whatshisface 4y ago
That could be a true allegation, but by making it without evidence you're creating a standard that someone could only satisfy by hiring only men. None of those guys actually care about affirmative action, they're doing it as a fig leaf of civic-mindedness, and that means they'll drop it instantly if their reputations would ever be better off without it.
O__________O 4y ago
No additional information, but if you Google images of his clerks and then for images of the source for that claim, only one that appears to be trying to look like a model is the source.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Kavanuagh was working within the system, or at least able to find a rationale within it. It doesn't mean a) that he agrees with the system b) that he can't find another way to reach the same result in a new system

endisneigh 4y ago
He believes the issue is that there are too few women who are clerks in the highest courts. It’s the fastest way to contribute to the perceived resolution of the issue from his point of view.

scarmig 4y ago

Interestingly, he only brings on pretty girls, to the point where people advise interviewees to sex themselves up a bit for interviews with him. Thank God he's fighting systemic oppression.

rayiner 4y ago

Note that Title VII, banning discrimination in employment, doesn’t apply to judiciary employees, which law clerks are. Since the Harvard case involves Title VI (a parallel provision relating to discrimination in education) that’s a significant distinction.

miffy900 4y ago

Most courts try to limit the scope of their rulings as much as possible though. If the case before them only concerned the question of race/ethnicity, and the issue of gender or sex never came up, then Kavanaugh could probably find enough wiggle room to justify joining the other conservative judges and striking it down.