Careful precedent selection: the first "disparate impact" case (Griggs) actually involved what was clearly intentional discrimination.
-
-
-
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman yes, but it seems actually devious (maybe just because I personally bought it for this reason for so long)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing well, reformers openly talk about picking which cases they fight in the Supreme Court to optimize for success.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman absolutely - the Lovings come to mind! - this is just a particularly audacious example of actually confusing the issues.
12:12 AM - 10 Feb 2014
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.