data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ef118/ef118db8538316d13414b77917e324f00e093d44" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f2f93/f2f939022ffae29e4decb326a98f4493d0a2e13e" alt=""
6·
1 day agoI mean I’m sure the forms aren’t identical but is having to tell the same information so much of a burden that removing it materially changes anything?
It seems like to work would be in tracking the spending and then once that is done what all is there to save from only having to hand that data to one watchdog instead of two?
Unless of course one of those watchdogs, being a smaller state agency, could be cheaply bought and have their reporting requirements gutted.
When powerful people want small government what they really want is cheaper bribes.
The headline here is kinda absurd. From the article
This case is about whether or not the sixth circuit rule that a majority group plaintiff has to demonstrate additional background circumstances is constitutional.
That’s liberal justice Elana Kagan making an argument reading the sixth circuits ruling.
So this case boils down to, “do members of the majority group have to jump over a higher bar to require that employers provide a non-discriminatory reason for their adverse employment action.”
The working class should be shoulder to shoulder in solidarity here.