Lawyers...front and center...more on the war on women...SCOTUS style...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57
  1. #1
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,790

    Lawyers...front and center...more on the war on women...SCOTUS style...

    Alright, what do you guys think of this?

    Coleman v Court of Appeals of Maryland...

    The (Not-So-Secret) War on Moms : How the Supreme Court Took Protections Away from Pregnant Workers

    This appears to be legislating from the bench....I mean, I can see ruling on the constitutionality of the FMLA, or in this case, this provision...but they specifically used the word "justified". This seems to be another form of discrimination against women, but this time in the guise of a supreme court robe.....

    We really are going backwards aren't we...

    Reminds me of this photo....
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst View Post
    Alright, what do you guys think of this?
    Blows

    We really are going backwards aren't we...
    Yes, we are and at a truly frightening pace.
    Marco Pantani died for your sins.

    " I guess most guys don't think of themselves as larvae, but hey, we're all lucky that pterodactyls are no longer ruling the skies." ~Bob Roll


    2011 GT GTR Series 2
    Blog: Riding With Cancer

  3. #3
    Milk was a bad choice.
    Reputation: erj549's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,338
    If you will add Capitol Hill to the list of targets for our upcoming Iran war, I'm down. Let's start fresh.

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,493
    SCOTUS is so divided along political lines that it makes a mockery of justice and impartial judgement.

    Keep voting for republicans people and see how far these lunatic will go to impose their "values" on everyone.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    KHS CX 550 Cross
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    Pake French 75 track

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,032
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    SCOTUS is so divided along political lines that it makes a mockery of justice and impartial judgement.

    Keep voting for republicans people and see how far these lunatic will go to impose their "values" on everyone.
    As opposed to liberal judges who are all "fair and balanced", right?

    Amazing...its YOUR GUY who said he wants to "fundamentally change America" but in your head, its the GOP who wants to "impose its values on everyone."

    Thats just rich. Absolutely rich.

    Now, if youll excuse me, I have to go throw a black, gay grandmother off a cliff. BOOO!!

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    19,389
    Quote Originally Posted by RkFast View Post
    As opposed to liberal judges who are all "fair and balanced", right?

    Amazing...its YOUR GUY who said he wants to "fundamentally change America" but in your head, its the GOP who wants to "impose its values on everyone."

    Thats just rich. Absolutely rich.

    Now, if youll excuse me, I have to go throw a black, gay grandmother off a cliff. BOOO!!
    wow, way to keep your head in the game.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,585
    Throughout history, as the tide of D v R ebbed and flowed, the Supreme Court generally found a way to let Jurisprudence be the ultimate arbiter in their decisions. We've seen so-called conservative justices make reasoned and rational arguments in favor of liberal causes and vice versa. But it appears to me that the current make up of the court is more willing to play politics than previous iterations--and that's a disappointment. Seems like every session there's a head-scratchingly bizarre decision that reeks of politics more than anything.

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    26,773

    There's something new here, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by charlox5 View Post
    Throughout history, as the tide of D v R ebbed and flowed, the Supreme Court generally found a way to let Jurisprudence be the ultimate arbiter in their decisions. We've seen so-called conservative justices make reasoned and rational arguments in favor of liberal causes and vice versa. But it appears to me that the current make up of the court is more willing to play politics than previous iterations--and that's a disappointment. Seems like every session there's a head-scratchingly bizarre decision that reeks of politics more than anything.
    The issue is, should an employer allow a woman employee leave of absence to bear a child? Does this constitute health care? Or is child bearing not health care at all, but a change of role, another job voluntarily taken on, if temporarily, by the woman?

    Traditionally, a women who worked quit her job when she got pregnant, somewhere between the third and 7th month, and prepared for the baby. She would devote 100% of her attention to bringing the child into the world and, nurturing and teaching for the first 4 or 5 years, then rejoin the workforce when the child was old enough for school, often waiting until the teenage years. This is probably where the 5 judges come from.

    Today, financial requirements include the wife working. If she wants to have a baby, she takes as little time off as possible. When the child comes, it's often taken care of by grandmom or a nanny, and sent to daycare in the third year. She hangs on to her job, doesn't sever her relationship with her employer, same as a man would. She's treated same as a man, "equal protection."

    So what's right or wrong in these two scenarios?

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    The issue is, should an employer allow a woman employee leave of absence to bear a child? Does this constitute health care? Or is child bearing not health care at all, but a change of role, another job voluntarily taken on, if temporarily, by the woman?

    Traditionally, a women who worked quit her job when she got pregnant, somewhere between the third and 7th month, and prepared for the baby. She would devote 100% of her attention to bringing the child into the world and, nurturing and teaching for the first 4 or 5 years, then rejoin the workforce when the child was old enough for school, often waiting until the teenage years. This is probably where the 5 judges come from.

    Today, financial requirements include the wife working. If she wants to have a baby, she takes as little time off as possible. When the child comes, it's often taken care of by grandmom or a nanny, and sent to daycare in the third year. She hangs on to her job, doesn't sever her relationship with her employer, same as a man would. She's treated same as a man, "equal protection."

    So what's right or wrong in these two scenarios?
    Same as what man?

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    The issue is, should an employer allow a woman employee leave of absence to bear a child? Does this constitute health care? Or is child bearing not health care at all, but a change of role, another job voluntarily taken on, if temporarily, by the woman?

    Traditionally, a women who worked quit her job when she got pregnant, somewhere between the third and 7th month, and prepared for the baby. She would devote 100% of her attention to bringing the child into the world and, nurturing and teaching for the first 4 or 5 years, then rejoin the workforce when the child was old enough for school, often waiting until the teenage years. This is probably where the 5 judges come from.

    Today, financial requirements include the wife working. If she wants to have a baby, she takes as little time off as possible. When the child comes, it's often taken care of by grandmom or a nanny, and sent to daycare in the third year. She hangs on to her job, doesn't sever her relationship with her employer, same as a man would. She's treated same as a man, "equal protection."

    So what's right or wrong in these two scenarios?
    Scenario I disrupts any chance the woman might have had at advancing her career as she "opts out" for 4-5 years. Still, this is a matter of choice by the working mother that many career women make (my wife or my sister being examples).

    Scenario II, even if pregnant woman are working well into month 8 or 9 of pregnancy these days, still means that for 6-ish weeks after delivery she will be at home, caring for her newborn. Some employers use these 6 weeks as an excuse to lay off, fire, or not promote women within their workplace.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    26,773
    Quote Originally Posted by charlox5 View Post
    Scenario I disrupts any chance the woman might have had at advancing her career as she "opts out" for 4-5 years. Still, this is a matter of choice by the working mother that many career women make (my wife or my sister being examples).

    Scenario II, even if pregnant woman are working well into month 8 or 9 of pregnancy these days, still means that for 6-ish weeks after delivery she will be at home, caring for her newborn. Some employers use these 6 weeks as an excuse to lay off, fire, or not promote women within their workplace.
    That seems to be the issue. Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee instead of allowing her 6 weeks off? Does the same employer allow a man 6 weeks off for an injury or operation and recovery? If so is denial of the same for a woman not sex discrimination, a violation of "equal protection?"

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    That seems to be the issue. Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee instead of allowing her 6 weeks off? Does the same employer allow a man 6 weeks off for an injury or operation and recovery? If so is denial of the same for a woman not sex discrimination, a violation of "equal protection?"
    What if daddy wants 6 weeks off to bond with his newborn?

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lotophage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    That seems to be the issue. Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee instead of allowing her 6 weeks off? Does the same employer allow a man 6 weeks off for an injury or operation and recovery? If so is denial of the same for a woman not sex discrimination, a violation of "equal protection?"
    Family leave act provides leave for men and women as long as your company has the required number of employees.

    You can't be fired (as far as I know) for being injured on the job, but that doesn't mean you can't be let go for any number of other reasons. But you can't be fired specifically for getting injured on the job.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    Your Logical-to-Dumbass ratio is way out of kilter, buddy

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lotophage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    What if daddy wants 6 weeks off to bond with his newborn?
    As long as your company has 50 or more employees, Daddy is able to request 6 weeks of unpaid leave.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    Your Logical-to-Dumbass ratio is way out of kilter, buddy

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: surfndav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    SCOTUS is so divided along political lines that it makes a mockery of justice and impartial judgement.

    Keep voting for republicans people and see how far these lunatic will go to impose their "values" on everyone.
    Let's see here, wasn't Justice Kennedy appointed by Ronald Reagan. Not to worry though 8 years of Mitt and he'll get thing straighten out. At the very least get old Ruth Bader out of there, and get someone sensible like another Sandra Day O.

    Keep voting for Democrats people and see how far these lunatic will go to impose their "values" on everyone.
    "Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." Peasant

    "Our capitalist system provides the initiative for the majority to develop their talents where they will be of most value to the free will bearing people of our nation." Me, 2011

  16. #16
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    32,819
    Quote Originally Posted by RkFast View Post
    Now, if youll excuse me, I have to go throw a black, gay grandmother off a cliff.
    By Today's GOP™ standards, that's downright 'moderate'.

    I'm sure she had it coming.
    .
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by RkFast View Post
    As opposed to liberal judges who are all "fair and balanced", right?

    Amazing...its YOUR GUY who said he wants to "fundamentally change America" but in your head, its the GOP who wants to "impose its values on everyone."

    Thats just rich. Absolutely rich.

    Now, if youll excuse me, I have to go throw a black, gay grandmother off a cliff. BOOO!!
    Sure liberal judgest are aligned along political lines (which is just as disturbing) but they comes a little closer to my values. But what I would like to see is an end to politicians and the SC pushing ANY moral values on anyone. Is that hard to comprehend?
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    KHS CX 550 Cross
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    Pake French 75 track

  18. #18
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotophage View Post
    As long as your company has 50 or more employees, Daddy is able to request 6 weeks of unpaid leave.
    I knew a guy that did this for everyone of his six kids. He didn't make partner.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by surfndav View Post
    Keep voting for Democrats people and see how far these lunatic will go to impose their "values" on everyone.
    What moral and religious values are liberals imposing on everyone? Sure there is the odd weirdo, but generally republicans are leading the way. Is that not clear to you? Or are you another of those religious zealots happy to impose your crap on everyone?
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    KHS CX 550 Cross
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    Pake French 75 track

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12,550
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    Sure liberal judgest are aligned along political lines (which is just as disturbing) but they comes a little closer to my values. But what I would like to see is an end to politicians and the SC pushing ANY moral values on anyone. Is that hard to comprehend?
    So its fine if they legislate from the bench and impose your values on others?

    You should write Obama's platform.

  21. #21
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,953
    Quote Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    I knew a guy that did this for everyone of his six kids. He didn't make partner.
    Wonder how his six kids feel about that.

  22. #22
    Iohannes fac totum
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,150
    What a bunch of crap!

    My wife was able to use her entire 12 weeks off without issue when our children were born. In addition, I was also able to use an entire 12 weeks. For our first child my wife stayed out for 12 weeks and I initially stayed out of work for a few weeks. I went back to work, and then when she went back to work at week 12, I went back out for "bonding time" for an additional couple of weeks so that we could delay daycare. Our second child, pretty much same scenario, except my wife changed her hours and is now part time. Pretty much scenario 2 in Frederico's post (except no Grandma's are local).

    Again, bunch of crap. Unless I'm missing something, the women/men of Maryland (everywhere?) should grab their pitchforks for this one.

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lotophage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex View Post
    Again, bunch of crap. Unless I'm missing something, the women/men of Maryland (everywhere?) should grab their pitchforks for this one.
    My wife has pointed out that these aren't just women's issues and this isn't just an attack on women.

    This is an attack on families.

    Birth control is a family issue- it affects ME just as much as it affects her. We don't want another kid. The one we have is plenty.

    Family leave act is a family issue. It's good to know that, should we decide to have another kid, that my wife will have a job waiting for her when she gets back from maternity leave. Me, I can't take advantage of it- My company only has 10 employees.
    Quote Originally Posted by JustTooBig View Post
    Your Logical-to-Dumbass ratio is way out of kilter, buddy

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,508
    Quote Originally Posted by 88 rex View Post
    What a bunch of crap!

    My wife was able to use her entire 12 weeks off without issue when our children were born. In addition, I was also able to use an entire 12 weeks. For our first child my wife stayed out for 12 weeks and I initially stayed out of work for a few weeks. I went back to work, and then when she went back to work at week 12, I went back out for "bonding time" for an additional couple of weeks so that we could delay daycare. Our second child, pretty much same scenario, except my wife changed her hours and is now part time. Pretty much scenario 2 in Frederico's post (except no Grandma's are local).

    Again, bunch of crap. Unless I'm missing something, the women/men of Maryland (everywhere?) should grab their pitchforks for this one.
    What if the person who stands in for you does your job better than you do?

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    So its fine if they legislate from the bench and impose your values on others?

    You should write Obama's platform.
    Reading comprehension problems? I clearly said they should not touch moral values at all.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    KHS CX 550 Cross
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    Pake French 75 track

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.