Up next in 10
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsMSFwBF-4SWD5msARwYkdw/join
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
hey ladies and gentlemen this is Carmine
0:02
Saia for explain America and you know
0:04
it's not often these days that the
0:06
Supreme Court's in agreement on anything
0:09
but on one very particular thing they
0:11
seem to be in radical agreement and I
0:14
mean unanimously and Liberals are not
0:16
going to be happy at all before we get
0:19
started please make sure you like
0:21
comment share and subscribe those little
0:24
things really help us out and they help
0:26
our Channel continue to grow and if
0:28
you're not watching us on YouTube
0:30
please visit that address in the lower
0:32
right hand corner it's
0:34
youtube.com/ exlain amera and hit
0:36
subscribe absolutely free it really
0:39
helps us out the Supreme Court got a
0:41
case of a woman who said she was passed
0:44
over for a promotion now what she says
0:47
is she got a boss who happened to be a
0:50
homosexual
0:51
woman and this wasn't her boss all along
0:54
it was a new boss and then down the line
0:57
she got passed over by a promotion for a
0:59
promot otion and that promotion was
1:01
given to a fellow homosexual who did not
1:04
have the experience or
1:06
qualifications she went to court and she
1:08
faced the lower courts and the lower
1:10
courts said no you can't sue because now
1:13
get ready for this you're not part of a
1:15
marginalized group and as a straight
1:17
white person the bar for you to prove
1:20
discrimination is far
1:22
higher so she kept fighting she kept
1:25
appealing and now the supreme court has
1:27
it and all nine justices including the
1:30
three
1:31
liberals basically said when they were
1:33
questioning you know hearing the
1:35
arguments on this why should straight
1:37
white people have a higher bar for
1:39
discrimination than anybody else it
1:41
doesn't make any sense that's not
1:43
equality and it looks like it's going to
1:46
get struck down it looks like that rule
1:48
is going to be basically wiped out of
1:50
the courts so discrimination is
1:52
discrimination for everybody and that's
1:55
how it always should have been it's
1:56
ridiculous that one group's bar is lower
1:58
or higher than another
2:00
you shouldn't discriminate
2:02
period
2:03
meritocracy people should get promoted
2:05
based on Merit period end of story I
2:09
want you to watch this video on it and
2:10
let me know what you think in the
2:13
comments so what type of case could
2:15
cause all arguments at the Supreme Court
2:17
to actually wrap up five minutes early
2:20
Apparently one involving reverse
2:22
discrimination the justice is hearing
2:24
the case of Marlene Ames today she is a
2:26
straight white woman she says she
2:29
received two promotions while at Ohio's
2:31
Department of Youth Services but then in
2:32
2017 she says she started working for a
2:35
gay boss and two years later aim says
2:38
she was passed over for promotion which
2:40
she says unfairly went to a gay person
2:43
so she sued but lower courts they threw
2:46
out her case saying there is a higher
2:48
legal bar for workers in majority groups
2:51
like straight white people it's now in
2:54
front of the Supreme Court Justices and
2:56
oral arguments today virtually all the
2:58
justices seem SK skeptical that there
3:00
should be a higher bar for quote unquote
3:03
reverse discrimination
3:06
cases it applies same to
3:09
everybody well we agree that the court
3:11
should say that at the very very minimum
3:13
but we're in radical agreement today on
3:16
that it seems to me Jo me now to discuss
3:19
this radical agreement sen legal anal
3:21
and former Federal prosecutor Elliot
3:23
Williams also Ian milhiser senior
3:25
correspondent at Vox focusing on the
3:27
Supreme Court and the Constitution ellot
3:29
I'll begin with you I mean the idea of
3:31
radical agreement what's the likelihood
3:33
these justices side with the plaintiff
3:36
in this case exceptionally high now that
3:38
doesn't mean she wins the whole case it
3:41
would get sent back down for um uh for
3:44
for new findings in light of this new
3:47
standard now again what the Supreme
3:49
Court or not even the Supreme Court five
3:51
circuits around the country have law
3:53
that essentially requires um plaintiffs
3:56
who are from majority groups white
3:58
people or heterosexuals or whatever
4:00
to in effect make additional findings in
4:02
order to move forward with a
4:04
discrimination suit that you know that
4:06
just didn't sit well with the justices
4:08
um even acknowledging this idea that yes
4:12
um people in minority groups may have
4:14
suffered more um putting an additional
4:16
burden on on white people or straight
4:19
people whatever else just doesn't seem
4:20
to make sense and and then you could
4:22
hear it through all nine of the justices
4:23
in their questioning today yeah there
4:25
was a phrase that was often used it was
4:27
background circumstances this was a rule
4:30
explain what that is exactly and how
4:32
does that
4:36
[Music]
Social Issues & Advocacy
Discrimination & Identity Relations
Human Rights & Liberties
Constitutional Law & Civil Rights
Labor & Employment Law