Judicial Dissent in the Voice of John Austin
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Act applies to all employers with 15 or more employees, and it covers a wide range of employment practices, including hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination. If an employee believes that he or she has been the victim of discrimination, he or she can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC will then investigate the claim and, if it finds evidence of discrimination, it may take legal action against the employer.
Thus, it must be agreed by all that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The legal positivist interpretation of this law is that it should be read narrowly to only prohibit intentional discrimination by employers. This means that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone or give them a promotion because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, this interpretation does not extend to cases of unconscious bias or disparate impact. For example, if an employer has a policy that disproportionately impacts people of a certain race, they would not be violating the law under this interpretation. Critics of this interpretation argue that it is too narrow and does not adequately protect employees from discrimination. They argue that the law should be interpreted more broadly to encompass all forms of discrimination, intentional or not.
The legal positivist viewpoint holds that the law is what the legislature says it is, and that court decisions are only authoritative insofar as they are based on the text of the relevant statutes. Applying this approach to the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is clear that the answer is no. The text of the Act does not mention sexual orientation, and there is no controlling Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Act to prohibit such discrimination. As a result, any...
…1964 would be an unjustifiable violation of the rule of law.The better approach to the case of Bostock would be to lobby legislators to once more amend the law. That is the correct legal process for change. It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to make such changes. The Court exists to interpret the laws passed by Congressnot to change the laws by adding new definitions or meanings to them based on contemporary need.
The majority opinion in the ruling of Bostock is therefore in the wrong. It cannot be supported legally, although some may wish to support the ruling morally. Morality, however, should have nothing to do with the job of a justice of the Supreme Court. It is not the duty of such a justice to bring morality to any case. It is only the duty of such a justice to interpret the text of the law as it is writtenno more, no less. Thus, the dissenting opinion must conclude that there is no justification for Bostocks appeal: Title VII does not warrant such justification, nor can this Court give it. Nor ought this Court give…
Bibliography
Bostock v. Clayton County. 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618
Supreme Court and Public Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 as part of the basic three sections of the American governmental system: Executive (President and Staff), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court System). Each U.S. State also has a supreme court, which is the highest law for interpreting cases that move into that jurisdiction. Essentially, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction over all federal
While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement
Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006) The Case The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau,
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. CASH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. James NEELY. Facts In 1973, James Neely started working for Cash Distributing Co., a company that distributed Anheuser-Busch products in several parts of the United States. The company had offices in Columbus, Starkville and Tupelo. During the 1990s, James Neely was heading the Columbus office. By this time, Anheuser-Busch started to look more closely at the way some of its rules were enforced,
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now