Wednesday Writs: Myra Bradwell Fights the Power

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

16 Responses

  1. Doctor Jay says:

    [L1] Huh. I would have thought that this would be a slam dunk these days because of the 14th Amendment, but apparently there is a difference between “privileges and immunities” and “equal protection under the law”.

    I’m certain I don’t know enough to know whether there are solid reasons for this, or it just represents a historical path where the Court’s opinion followed changing public opinion.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Doctor Jay says:

      There wasn’t a SCOTUS decision finding unconstitutional gender discrimination until (I believe)1971 when the court struck down a statute that gave preference to males when designating an administer of an estate without a will. (Reed v. Reed)

      OTOH, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in employment.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon says:

    L10: Awwwww!Report

  3. George Turner says:

    L8: California in a nutshell is a boilerplate headline that reads “A new law to ____________ may make employment financially unsustainable for many workers even though the legislator behind the law insists that the goal is “to create new good jobs and a livable, sustainable wage job.”

    It’s long been said that if coastal journalism jobs were the ones being outsourced to India, they’d have screamed bloody murder until the laws and trade agreements were changed. I guess we’ll see.Report

  4. Michael Cain says:

    L9: “…and believe that the justices make decisions based on the law, not politics.”

    I believe this, for the most part. The Court still decides a majority of cases per year by large majorities. IIRC, more than half by 9-0 votes. It’s that relatively small number of high profile cases where the Court looks like it is making major policy decisions that raise the calls of “Politics!”Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

      People like to conflate politics and philosophical outlooks, as if they were the same thing.Report

      • When every Republican justice voted to gut the Voting Rights Act in a way that’s obviously legislating from the bench, they destroyed any basis for trusting them.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          Right. Judges agree on 99.9% of cases. Their occasional disagreements are partisanly motivated. That that is surprising to anyone is beyond me.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          When every Republican justice voted to gut the Civil Rights Act in a way that’s obviously legislating from the bench, they destroyed any basis for trusting them.

          Insisting that the Grandchild of a racist is not automagically a racist and the CRA needs a better method is not “legislating from the bench”.

          An obvious, and Constiutional, alternative would be for Congress to extend the act to all areas and not just the grandchildren of racists. The amazing part to me is all the Team Blue jurists voted in lockstep that it was just peachy keen to keep the “grandchildren” method.Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    L9: Lots of naive people out there. The Federalist Society blesses 7th grade civics teachers for turning the nation into a bunch of dopes.Report

  6. Chip Daniels says:

    Poll: About 1/3 of Americans support some form of socialism;
    Reaction: OMFG!! What is the world coming to??

    Another poll: About 1/3 of Americans think the SCOTUS is motivated by partisan politics;
    Reaction: Whew, that’s reassuring!Report

  7. Anne says:

    L8 not only writers, though the arbitrary 35 article cap is absolutely ridiculous. I am an art conservator in private practice and primarily contract with museums around the country on projects. By the three prong test it would seem I should be an employee of all the museums I work with. IANAL and tried to read through the exemptions but could not really determine if my profession would be exempt. My husband is a freelance photographer and reporter and if we lived in California this would absolutely ruin him. It is just a horribly thought out law.Report

  8. Dark Matter says:

    L8: What is supposed to happen is employers will turn their “contractors” into permanent employees.

    At wages FAR greater than the current market wages. Of course what will actually happen is employers will carefully monitor their contractors to make sure they don’t go above 34… or better yet, make sure they don’t come from California.Report

  9. L1. Chase, of course, had first-hand experience of how capable a woman could be, as well as why she shouldn’t be dependent on her husband.Report

  1. August 19, 2020

    […] case; that April, the Supreme Court had struck a blow to women’s rights with their opinion in Myra Bradwell v. Illinois, in which the Court upheld the state’s law prohibiting women from the practice of […]Report