Ap, I have already schooled you once on fine points of law. As I recall, you didn't believe me then, either, and had to get your own lawyer to confirm what I told you. If you want a brief, with cites, I charge $250/hour. Make an appointment, pay your bill and I will happily provide you with all the precedent and case law you want to pay for. More importantly, I will explain to you how to interpret what you read because not all case law means what you think it does, in plain English.
I told you what I told you here, for free, so you would know; not so you could make up your mind whether you want to believe it or not.
AP said, "@Progressive
The issue was the need to show intent in order for the MSD law to be declared unconstitutional.
You claimed that a precedent exists that shows no intent to discriminate needs to be shown."
Ap, Progressive is right. When dealing with suspect classes, no intent to discriminate need be shown. All that has to be shown is the governmental action does indeed lead to discriminatory impact. When the end result is discrimination against a suspect class, the law is unconstitutional if it cannot pass strict scrutiny. OTP has already explained to you what must be shown to pass strict scrutiny so there is no need for me to reiterate.
By Louis Goggans
download this issue
click here to see more »