In light of the awaited Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 debate what affects the decision might have. Kaufman argues same-sex marriage will not necessarily set a precedent for other non-traditional marriages, while Smitherman claims allowing same-sex marriage may have unexpected consequences.
With the Court asking for an opinion, the government will be forced to pick a side, which could have a broader policy impact for federal drug enforcement across the nation.
Today we hope to talk about an issue of utmost importance for our generation—an issue that can, and should, unite us rather than divide us along political lines. That issue is same-sex marriage, and specifically the court case that could make marriage equality the law of the land at last.
Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 debate the usage and necessity of affirmative action policies. Kaufman argues that race should be one of many factors considered in university admissions while Smitherman claims we should have a solely merit-based admissions system.
It is remarkable how simple language can quickly become ambiguous, and it highlights the vital importance of well-reasoned court decisions interpreting statutes.
GVRs are increasingly being issued in cases in which there is no intervening Supreme Court opinion that would affect the lower court’s decision, which has occasioned Justice Scalia’s and Justice Thomas’s criticism of the Court’s use of GVRs.
In many ways, Pao was a guinea pig for such a kind of gender discrimination case, but her efforts to expose the insular world of venture capitalism have paved the way for women to pursue more equal treatment in the future.
In the end, the Indiana religious freedom law does matter precisely because it will likely have limited future consequences. The volume and intensity of reactions in Indiana and across the country provides a strong barometer on the climate against discrimination and especially increasing passionate sentiments in favor of gay rights. The Religious Freedom Act is an extremely significant law from both a legal and a societal standpoint because it does strongly parallel the rules of the Jim Crow era and carries the debate of individual liberty versus discrimination into a broader context.