Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (6881)	6/1/2007 10:26:17 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

I agree with you as a matter of what's good practical policy, and in terms of what is the just solution in this case. But the court is supposed to decide the case based on law. I'm not expert in CA discrimination law, but it could be that it does indeed forbid what E-harmony does. If so I'm not sure I can find constitutional grounds to overturn the law. But if the law doesn't clearly forbid E-Harmony's set up, I'd be very against the courts trying to expand the last to forbid it. Not only would it be an issue of practical results, a just solution, and greater freedom, being sacrificed in the name of diversity, it would also be judicial activism. And further more it wouldn't even really increase diversity, because "Diversity Across Institutions" (see volokh.com would suffer) Also if the law actually does forbid what E-Harmony does, then the law should be changed. (but the change should come through the CA legislature) I think it was some Dickens character who said - “If the law says that, then the law is an ass.”