Not sure what instances your chosen communities live on, but lemmy is very much alive for me

It is, but you’d need a substantial portion of Republicans to break ranks and vote to expel a member of their own party (reducing their vote margin) in order to expel him, since the Republicans are the majority

I hope to see it but certainly not holding my breath.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that there should be an intermediate step.

That’s just a problem for Congress to solve, not the Court. The Court is not going to add that step in (nor does it appear the Defendants have asked for that). Congress could end this woman’s trail of lawsuits tomorrow as soon as the House picks a new Speaker.

What the Defendants are arguing is that because she had no intention of staying at the hotel, there is no harm. If you buy into that, then by the same principle, someone who inquires about an apartment to prove that a landlord is racially discriminating can have no standing because they weren’t actually looking to move at that time. I know you probably don’t see those as the same, but that’s the concept the Defendants are arguing against.

Listen, I get that you don’t like what this woman is doing. I really do. But the solution isn’t to invalidate testers as a legal concept, that’s what you’re not getting. The solution is for Congress to amend the ADA to allow for some sort of curing mechanism on notice issues. Not for the Court to issue some overly broad ruling that invalidates the “tester” concept that’s proven so crucial to proving racial and gender discrimination, which this plaintiff has built her case atop. Maybe there’s a way for them to thread the needle to smack her down and keep that legal concept alive, but I’m not counting on it with this particular Court.

The nation, and you as a disabled vet who benefits from ADA protections, benefits more if she prevails or the case is mooted, than it and you would if the Court decides to undermine the legal concept of a tester. You have to think beyond your initial revulsion over her suing where you think an email would do, the ramifications are bigger than that.

In the meantime, sounds like you have an idea to needle your Senators and/or Congressman about updating the ADA. Seems like the rare bit of legislation where the business lobby might be onboard with helping the little guy instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

I think this particular woman’s actions are a waste of people’s time and money, and are of dubious provenance to “solve” anything. That’s not at all my point.

My point is that a ruling that eliminates “testers” for cases of discrimination, as she claims she is doing here, would have wide-ranging negative implications for civil rights laws throughout the country, not solely the ADA.

The best thing that could really happen here is that the SC moots the case because the websites have been updated - I tend to think that’s the right outcome, since the “harm” was remedied.

I know this lady seems awful, but the concept of a “tester” extends to other issues where invalidating the concept basically allows the illegal behavior to exist unchecked.

Let’s use the example of a bar that has a locally known, but unwritten, rule against allowing in black patrons. This isn’t legal. But you can’t really bring suit unless an unfamiliar black traveler tries to stumble into the bar, only to be told they’re not allowed. Or someone who knows the unwritten rule exists can go to get denied, thereby providing actionable proof of discrimination for a lawsuit.

I mean, that’s just running on name recognition, not nepotism.

Dude is crazy and unqualified, but he’s not benefiting from nepotism. He’d need to actually be benefiting from some kind of family connections for that, and the entire Kennedy clan is running away from him.

Joe Kennedy III is a good example of a current day Kennedy nepo baby, even if he failed in his Senate bid.

Is it nepotism when his family is like “please Bobby, don’t do this” and “please guys, don’t listen to Bobby, he’s got some screws loose not ‘good points’”?

The context is that the mods of r/politics have long had a reputation for being inconsistent and erratic in various ways.

Obviously I don’t actually know the full context, but it strikes me as utterly plausible given the likelihood of a report by someone who disagreed with them and a mod team prone to shooting from the hip

Unlikely indeed, but would be very welcome of it happened.

Otherwise, as is often the case, Liz Warren has got something for that (which will go nowhere in this useless Congress)