But as you pointed out USA doesn't acknowledge caste, so specifying caste discrimination would be bad, so making sure it can be prosecuted under the "general" discrimination laws makes more sense, doesn't it?
AngryHumanoid
joined 1 year ago
Like I said, I don't see the harm in spelling it out even if it is superfluous, it does make me wonder if he vetoed it for another reason and doesn't want to say.
Sure, but I'd love to hear a smart lawyer use a governor's statement while arguing before a jury.
All men are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others /sarcasm
Exactly. It would be pretty stupid for a governor to say existing laws already apply when they don't, but I don't exactly trust any politician to tell the truth unless it's politically expedient for them.
Do we know that? Is there case law?
I don't know, that's where we would need a CA lawyer to chime in. Obviously that's where this issue could go either way.
There will always be a lawyer who will use any ridiculous argument to get their client off, that is literally their function. By the same argument the opposing counsel can point to the governors statement that other laws should be applicable, can't they?
Eh I see why people would have a visceral reaction to the veto but he (probably) has a point: if the existing laws can already be applied to caste discrimination as they are currently written it isn't technically necessary, having said that I don't see what it would hurt to add caste discrimination specifically. Any lawyers feel free to chime in on other side of the argument.
Close: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
"Careful, that's not a load bearing structure!" CRUNCH "It is now."
Someone elsewhere in the thread pointed out the US doesn't acknowledge caste at all, so maybe that's why they don't want to codify caste discrimination as that alone could lend credence to caste even being a thing.