4 ms·

Do we need laws against every specific thing if another law already covers it? I'd argue no, we don't need to call out special groups as protected, then there i

Do we need laws against every specific thing if another law already covers it? I'd argue no, we don't need to call out special groups as protected, then there is precedent for doing so for every special group. Keep our laws general and comprehensive, with as few special cases as possible, especially when it comes to protecting rights.

jfengel 3y ago
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws." -- Antonin Scalia It would be great if we could trust that laws would be interpreted as general and comprehensive. But laws mean what the judges want them to mean, which can be narrow or broad depending on their inclination. Right now the inclination of the top court is that if a protection isn't spelled out, then you don't have it.
- quantified 3y ago
  Right. Scalia or Thomas would strike down those things called laws because they prevent things that were historically allowed (originalism).
olliej 3y ago
The whole point is that existing laws do not clearly do so: they aren't discriminating against gender, race, religion, politics, or any of the other examples Newsom pointed to. That this discrimination is occurring is not up for debate, it is objective fact, which demonstrates the existing laws are not sufficient.
- belltaco 3y ago
  Newsom pointed to ancestry, which covers caste perfectly because it's all about ancestry. > That this discrimination is occurring is not up for debate, it is objective fact Source for this so called objective fact? > which demonstrates the existing laws are not sufficient? Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws?
  - olliej 3y ago
    > Source for this so called objective fact? This law came about after a case about caste discrimination against Cisco was dismissed. Or you can do some basic searches of twitter and mastodon for first hand accounts. > Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws? What? The whole point of this is that caste discrimination exists, and it happens, and it's not illegal. Pointing to things like murder, theft, etc is bizarre: all of those things are illegal, so when they happen the person responsible has broken the law. That's literally the point. Currently caste discrimination is not explicitly against the law, so your example would only ever be relevant if murder, theft, or assault were not already illegal. Seriously, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's also explicitly illegal to discriminate based on race and gender and that happens, but the victims can sue precisely because it is illegal.
    - belltaco 3y ago
      Cisco case was dismissed coz it was made up bs. Not because of lack of laws. https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-engineers-were-targetted-because-they-were-hindu-brahmin/1532070/ https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-e...

jfengel 3y ago

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws." -- Antonin Scalia It would be great if we could trust that laws would be interpreted as general and comprehensive. But laws mean what the judges want them to mean, which can be narrow or broad depending on their inclination. Right now the inclination of the top court is that if a protection isn't spelled out, then you don't have it.

quantified 3y ago
Right. Scalia or Thomas would strike down those things called laws because they prevent things that were historically allowed (originalism).

olliej 3y ago

The whole point is that existing laws do not clearly do so: they aren't discriminating against gender, race, religion, politics, or any of the other examples Newsom pointed to. That this discrimination is occurring is not up for debate, it is objective fact, which demonstrates the existing laws are not sufficient.

belltaco 3y ago
Newsom pointed to ancestry, which covers caste perfectly because it's all about ancestry. > That this discrimination is occurring is not up for debate, it is objective fact Source for this so called objective fact? > which demonstrates the existing laws are not sufficient? Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws?
- olliej 3y ago
  > Source for this so called objective fact? This law came about after a case about caste discrimination against Cisco was dismissed. Or you can do some basic searches of twitter and mastodon for first hand accounts. > Even it true it doesn't doesn't demonstrate that. There are strict laws against murder, theft, assault etc. and they happen quite frequently. The fact that they are occurring doesn't automatically mean existing laws are not sufficient. Is there any country in the world where crime has been totally eliminated by just passing a million laws? What? The whole point of this is that caste discrimination exists, and it happens, and it's not illegal. Pointing to things like murder, theft, etc is bizarre: all of those things are illegal, so when they happen the person responsible has broken the law. That's literally the point. Currently caste discrimination is not explicitly against the law, so your example would only ever be relevant if murder, theft, or assault were not already illegal. Seriously, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's also explicitly illegal to discriminate based on race and gender and that happens, but the victims can sue precisely because it is illegal.
  - belltaco 3y ago
    Cisco case was dismissed coz it was made up bs. Not because of lack of laws. https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-engineers-were-targetted-because-they-were-hindu-brahmin/1532070/ https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-e...