That's interesting. the case i was talking about is more recent. it rejected the oakes test (which is the canadian test). but apperently it wasn't the first to apply the whole ranking system, so that makes it difficult to find.
it's still strange to me that the 14th amendment is interpreted so narrowly. it seems the most obvious way to effectively protect against anti-discrimination. but if it has no impact in the real world then i can see how there would be no motivation to change it. (or ability to change it, with the current supreme court).
still, there is a possibility of discrimination at a federal level (even if unlikely).
just out of curiosity, does anti-discrimination legislation get applied to stuff like access to medical insurance? or is it limited to public stuff?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-02-13 04:22 am (UTC)it's still strange to me that the 14th amendment is interpreted so narrowly. it seems the most obvious way to effectively protect against anti-discrimination. but if it has no impact in the real world then i can see how there would be no motivation to change it. (or ability to change it, with the current supreme court).
still, there is a possibility of discrimination at a federal level (even if unlikely).
just out of curiosity, does anti-discrimination legislation get applied to stuff like access to medical insurance? or is it limited to public stuff?