Substantive Equality: A Perspective

It may state two separate claims as one.

Systemic discrimination results in jobs that mainly women do being paid less than jobs that mainly men do, yet comparable worth claims are not recognized in the United States.

“Systemic discrimination results in jobs that mainly women do being paid less than jobs that mainly men do, yet comparable worth claims are not recognized in the United States.”

• cites [34]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Reedy, the plaintiff won primarily on her privacy claim regarding blood analysis, and equality was mentioned only in amici's mission descriptions.

“As it was, she won primarily on her claim that analyzing her blood, drawn for the rape kit not the other purpose for which it was also used, violated her expectation, hence right, of privacy.63 The only mention of equality in the brief is in some of the groups' descriptions of their missions.64”

• cites Reedy, 615 F.3d 197Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Brief of Amici CuriaeNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Sara Reedy was raped by a robber of the convenience store where she worked; shortly after reporting the rape, she was arrested by Detective Frank Evanson for allegedly robbing her employer and falsely reporting the rape; after the perpetrator admitted both her rape and the robbery, Reedy sued Evanson for a range of violations not including sex discrimination.

“The plaintiff, Sara Reedy, was raped by a robber of the convenience store where she worked.59 Shortly after reporting the rape, she was arrested by Detective Frank Evanson for allegedly robbing her employer and falsely reporting the rape to cover it up.60 After the perpetrator later admit- ted both her rape and the robbery, subsequent to being arrested for a similar crime in the vicinity, Reedy”

• cites [59]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [60]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [61]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

No authority has denied that violence against women is sex discriminatory.

“even if no authority has denied that violence against women is sex discriminatory, and the U.S. Congress once adopted this theory 65”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The overall unresponsiveness of the judicial system and impunity enjoyed by the aggressors indicated insufficient commitment to take appropriate action to address domestic violence.

“Moreover, the -overall unresponsiveness of the judicial system and impunity enjoyed by the aggressors . . .indicated that there was insufficient commitment to take appropriate action to address domestic violence.‖72”

• cites Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02 ¶ 200 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 9, 2009)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

CEDAW's original approach was largely formal and conventional so far as equality itself was concerned and did not include violence against women.

“CEDAW's original approach, if broadgauged socially, economically, and culturally, was largely formal and conventional so far as equality itself was concerned and did not include violence against women.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey substantively responsible for the murder of a woman by her daughter's husband, whose violence and threats had been repeatedly reported, under the European Convention on Human Rights, violating the complainants' rights to equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex.

“In its most instructive and farthest-reaching decision in the area, the European Court of Human Rights found Turkey substantively responsible for the murder of a woman by her daughter's husband, whose violence and threats had been repeatedly reported to them, under the European Convention on Human Rights, 70 violating the complainants' rights to equal protection of the laws on the basis of sex.”

• cites Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02 ¶ 153 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 9, 2009)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Davis, a woman's 911 call was found non-testimonial hearsay, hence admissible.

“In Davis, a woman's 911 call was found non-testimonial hearsay, hence admissible.83”

• cites Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 828 (2006)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

The European Court of Human Rights said the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother may be regarded as gender-based violence which is a form of discrimination against women.

“-Bearing in mind its finding [that] . . .discriminatory judicial passivity in Turkey, albeit unintentional, mainly affected women,‖ the Court said, -the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother may be regarded as gender-based violence which is a form of discrimination against women.‖71”

• cites Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02 ¶ 200 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 9, 2009)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Over the last two decades, attention to crimes against women in peace and war under international humanitarian and criminal law principles combined with pursuit of violence against women as a human rights violation to produce the converged concept of 'gender crime.'

“Over the last two decades or so, attention to crimes committed against women in peace and war under international humanitarian and criminal law principles has combined with muscular pursuit of violence against women as a violation of human rights to produce the converged concept of -gender crime.‖”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Many Confrontation Clause cases involve domestic battering, one of the most common crimes in the United States, with women the most frequent victim of men with whom they are acquainted (often well).

“Many of the Confrontation Clause cases involve domestic battering, one of the most common crimes in the United States, 77 with women the most frequent victim of men with whom they are acquainted (often well).78”

• cites Uniform Crime Reports: National Data, THE FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites JULIE L. GERBERDING ET AL., DEP'T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., COSTS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES 1-2 (2003)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

International criminal justice entities came to see prosecuting individual perpetrators of gender crimes as a tool for protecting the human rights of their victims.

“at the same time international criminal justice entities came to see prosecuting individual perpetrators of the same crimes as a tool for protecting the human rights of their victims.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court represents the apex articulation of the concept of gender crime to date, recognizing gender crimes as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and acts of genocide.

“The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court represents the apex articulation of the concept to date, recognizing gender crimes as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and acts of genocide.67”

• cites Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art.7, ¶ 1(g), July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Almost sixty percent of the nearly 650 million small arms that exist in the world are in private hands, most of them male, and this has implications for women.

“Surely the fact that almost sixty percent of the nearly 650 million small arms that exist in the world are in private hands, most of them male, has implications for women.99”

• cites AMNESTY INT'L, THE IMPACT OF GUNS ON WOMEN'S LIVES 2 (2005)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Amici in Heller tabled evidence that sixty to seventy percent of women killed by their male partners were murdered with guns, and that guns in the home presented a constant lethal threat with terrorizing effects.

“Amici in Heller tabled evidence that sixty to seventy percent of women killed by their male partners were murdered with guns, and that guns in the home presented -a constant lethal threat‖ 102 with terrorizing effects.”

• cites Brief of Amici Curiae of National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. in Support of Petitioners at 26, 29, Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (No. 07-290)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Justice Breyer, dissenting, recognizes women among those particularly at risk from gun violence.

“Justice Breyer, dissenting, recognizes women among those -particularly at risk‖ from gun violence.113”

• cites McDonald v. City of Chi., 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3127 (2010) (Breyer, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Hammon, the woman's affidavit was taken by police within minutes of reporting her husband's battering, as he was being occupied by another police officer in the next room; her affidavit was considered testimonial rather than addressing an ongoing emergency.

“In its companion case, Hammon, the woman's affidavit was taken by police within minutes of reporting her husband's battering, as he was being occupied by another police officer in the next room.84 Her affidavit was considered testimonial rather than addressing an ongoing emergency.”

• cites Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 819-20 (2006)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Amici pointed out to the Court that the Crawford line may tempt defendants to intimidate or kill victims, with no sex equality analysis.

“Amici pointed this out to the Court with no sex equality analysis.89”

• cites Davis Amici Brief, supra note 87, at 19-20Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 19 n.10, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (No. 02-9410)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

In the United States, the historical reality of what 'every man,' 'able bodied men,' and 'all males' have perceived and wanted and expected supported a right to possess a firearm in the home, making them better able to resist tyranny.

“In the United States, the -historical reality‖ 107 of what -every man,‖ (1811) 108 -able bodied men,‖ 109 and -all males,‖ (1939) 110 have perceived and wanted and expected supported a right to possess a firearm in the home, making them -better able to resist tyranny.‖111”

• cites Heller, 554 U.S. at 599Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Heller, 554 U.S. at 596Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Heller, 554 U.S. at 595Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Justice Stevens maintains that there is a weaker, not stronger, basis for restricting firearm possession in the home.

“Justice Stevens even maintains that there is a weaker, not stronger, basis for restricting firearm possession in the home.115”

• cites McDonald v. City of Chi., 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3105 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Firearms are used in 59 per cent of all intimate partner homicides of women, and having one or more guns in the home makes a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner.

“-[F]irearms are used in 59 per cent of all intimate partner homicides of women, and having one or more guns in the home makes a woman 7.2 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner.‖101”

• cites Prevention of Human Rights Violations, supra note 100, at ¶ 36Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

This information was presented as a policy argument without legal equality dimension.

“This information, if powerful, was presented as a policy argument without legal equality dimension.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

An approach far better grounded in substantive reality, recognizing gender inequality, is that of the U.N. Security Council, calling for inquiry into the interplay between armed personal protection and armed power projection in the gendered context; facing the fact that women and girls are often gravely affected by small arms violence, through armed sexual violence, intimidation and coercion; and

“An approach far better grounded in substantive reality, recognizing gender inequality, is that of the U.N. Security Council, calling for inquiry into -the interplay between armed personal protection and armed power projection‖ in the gendered context; facing the fact that -[w]omen and girls are often gravely affected by small arms violence, through armed sexual violence, intimidation and coercion;”

• cites U.N. S.C., Small Arms: Report of the Secretary-General, ¶ 7, U.N. Doc. S/2008/258 (April 17, 2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Crawford and Heller, Justice Scalia writing for the Court treats the common law at the founding as precisely the 'brooding omnipresence in the sky' that Justice Holmes said it was not, as does Justice Alito for the Court in McDonald.

“By contrast, in Crawford and Heller, Justice Scalia writing for the Court treats the common law at the founding as precisely the -brooding omnipresence in the sky‖ 117 that Justice Holmes said it was not, as does Justice Alito for the Court in McDonald.118”

• cites S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Holmes, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3028-29Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 603 (2008)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The case that invalidated the civil remedy afforded by VAWA did so for impermissible use of the federal legislative power-wrongly in the author's view-but did not question that violence against women may be properly cognized as sex discrimination.

“The case that invalidated the civil remedy afforded by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) did so for impermissible use of the federal legislative power-wrongly in my view-but did not question that violence against women may be properly cognized as sex discrimination.United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617-20 (2000).”

• cites United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 617-20 (2000)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Lawrence, the Court conceded an equal protection analysis was tenable but rejected it because stigma might remain if the law remained unexamined for substantive validity.

“the Court conceded that an equal protection analysis was -a tenable argument‖ but rejected it because -[i]f protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons.‖”

• cites Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574-75 (2003)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Equal protection examines a statute only for its framing, not for its substantive validity; not for what it does, only how.

“Equal protection examines a statute only for its framing, not for -its substantive validity;‖ not for what it does, only how.”

• cites Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

U.S. constitutional equal protection doctrine is empty and has long failed to reach sex inequality.

“The emptiness of U.S. constitutional equal protection doctrine has long been apparent from its lack of reach to its shaky grasp on questions of sex inequality.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

At the lowest tier of scrutiny, where sexual orientation resides, a substantive equality jurisprudence does not exist and is unthinkable.

“At least at the lowest tier of scrutiny, where sexual orientation quite potently resides at the moment, 9 a substantive equality jurisprudence not only does not exist, it is unthinkable.”

• cites Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-36 (1996)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Due process has a substantive component whose substance is morality.

“Due process-intrinsically a procedural ideahas a substantive component; a venerable line of cases makes clear, in my view, that its substance is morality.”

• cites Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 545-46 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 599 (Scalia, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

The meaning given to rationality in this doctrine is reflection of existing conditions.

“The meaning given to -rationality‖ here is -reflection of existing conditions.‖”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The higher one ascends the tiers of scrutiny, the more rigorously equality is measured by how much of the regularity of sex can be ignored, and by how few outliers to a sex-based generalization it takes to invalidate a sex-based regularity.

“The higher one ascends up the tiers of scrutiny, going from the merely rational to the more rational to the most rational, seeking equality ever more rigorously is measured by how much of the regularity of sex can be ignored.Put another way, it is shown by how few outliers to a sex-based generalization it takes to invalidate a sex-based regularity.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Both Lawrence and Loving substantively contain a stratum of sexuality, hence gender, making both at least intersectional cases.

“Both cases also substantively contain a stratum of sexuality, hence gender, making both at least intersectional cases-Lawrence intersecting sex with sexual orientation, Loving intersecting race with sex.”

• cites Kimberle Crenshaw, Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, 1989 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 139 (1989)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Reed v. Reed could invalidate Idaho's sex-based intestate estate administration rules because women, substantively, could be presumed relatively educated in business matters.

“Reed v. Reed, the constitutional breakthrough, could invalidate Idaho's sex-based intestate estate administration rules because women, substantively, could be presumed relatively educated in business matters.”

• cites Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 77 (1971)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

No understanding of White Supremacy has so far overcome equal protection's formalism in the affirmative action cases.

“No understanding of White Supremacy has so far overcome equal protection's formalism in the affirmative action cases, where some white people stand not to get what they want materially, although there is hope.”

• cites Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of Univ. of Mich., Nos. 08-1387, 08-1389, 08-1534, 09-1111, 2011 WL 2600665 (6th Cir. July 1, 2011)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

If all women were kept illiterate, society would have been even more in need of sex equality, but the statute would have survived as rational.

“If all women were kept illiterate, as they often have been, society would have been even more in need of sex equality, but the statute would have survived as rational.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Because sex is conceived as a difference and equality as based on sameness, the worse inequality gets, the less formal equality can do about it, so equal protection doctrine operates to institutionalize it.

“The point is, because sex is conceived as a difference, and equality is understood as based on sameness in the Aristotelian approach of -likes alike, unlikes unalike,‖ the worse the inequality gets, the more disparate its social reality becomes, the less this legal approach can do about it, hence the more equal protection doctrine operates to institutionalize it.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Where sex inequality is based on an illusion of sex difference, the formal approach will work to counter unequal legal rules; but where sex inequality is real, the sexes are situated unequally.

“Where sex inequality is based on an illusion of sex difference, this approach will work, even well, to counter unequal legal rules.But what about all those situations in which the sex inequality is real, so the sexes are situated unequally?”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The disparate impact standard partially captures discrimination's effects but statutorily reduces to a nose-counting exercise.

“The disparate impact standard, while partially capturing another real part of discrimination's effects, which are usually disparate in numbers, even statutorily reduces to a nosecounting exercise.”

• cites 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(d) (2010)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites EEOC v. Warshawsky & Co., 768 F. Supp. 647, 654-55 (N.D. Ill. 1991)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The problem of formal equality does not end with lowest tier scrutiny, nor is it solved at the highest.

“This problem does not end with lowest tier scrutiny, nor is it solved at the highest.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

We know how much we care about sex equality by the extent of sex-based distinctions we cannot legally see; this makes the sex that is unequal a distinction, not second-class status, abstract classifications not substantive classes.

“We know how much we care about sex equality by the extent of sex-based distinctions we cannot legally see.It makes the sex that is unequal a distinction, not second-class status, abstract classifications not substantive classes.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

What Lawrence missed is the realization that prohibiting same-sex sodomy, and not non-same-sex sodomy, is a transparent expression of homophobia, imposing an ideology of straight privilege, placing heterosexual over homosexual in a hierarchy of supremacy.

“What Lawrence missed in this connection is what the ruling is essentially (if mostly tacitly) predicated on: the realization that prohibiting same-sex sodomy, and not non-same-sex sodomy, is a transparent expression of homophobia, imposing an ideology of straight privilege, placing heterosexual over homosexual in a hierarchy of supremacy.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The more pervasive the reality of sex inequality, the fewer outliers will be permitted, so the more that reality will look like a sex-based difference, which it will be increasingly rational for law to ignore as it ascends the tiers of scrutiny.

“The more pervasive the reality of sex inequality is, the fewer outliers will be permitted in reality, so the more that reality will look like a sexbased difference, mapping itself onto (the social idea of) sex as such, which it will be increasingly rational for law to ignore as it ascends the tiers of scrutiny.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The substantive understanding in Loving extended from White Supremacy to the more abstract race per se to invalidate a hypothetical racially symmetrical anti-intermarriage statute.

“it is remarkable that the substantive understanding extended from White Supremacy to the more abstract race per se to invalidate a hypothetical racially symmetrical anti-intermarriage statute.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Formal equality can conclude both that a gay marriage law does not discriminate against gay men and lesbian women based on sex and that it does discriminate against them based on sex.

“It can conclude both that a gay marriage law does not discriminate against gay men and lesbian women based on sex because both men and women equally cannot marry persons of their own sex, and that it does discriminate against them based on sex because each person who wishes to marry a person of their own sex could do so but for their sex.”

• cites Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 974 (Mass. 2003) (Spina, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites id. at 983 (Cordy, J., dissenting)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Formal equality is more than indeterminate; abstraction masquerades as empty while building in the content of things as they are, which is determinately unequal.

“This is more than indeterminate.If abstraction is seldom (maybe never) truly empty, here it masquerades as such while building in the content of things as they are, which is highly determinate: determinately unequal.It is no equality rule at all.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Equality is substantive in Canada.

“Equality is substantive in Canada.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

All these examples are forms of discrimination de facto, which American law opposes to de jure discrimination and considers beyond the reach of constitutional law even when law is deeply implicated.

“All are forms of discrimination de facto, the closest American law comes to recognizing the larger reality context of discrimination, which it simply opposes to de jure discrimination that is legally created, and is accordingly considered beyond the reach of constitutional law even when law is deeply implicated.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Although sexual harassment is generally statutorily treated as akin to disparate treatment, proof of motive in the usual sense is not generally required.

“Although it is generally statutorily treated as akin to disparate treatment, proof of motive in the usual sense is not generally required.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Canadian equality law has no intent requirement because most inequality is not intentional and its doctrine does not need it.

“Tellingly, Canadian equality law has no intent requirement because most inequality is not, in reality, intentional and because its doctrine, having no empty center to fill, does not need it.”

• cites Andrews, [1989] 1 S.C.R. at 172-75Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Most inequality is not intentional.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Intent entrenches in doctrine the assumption that the social world is equal other than in a few exceptional situations in which bad apple individuals set out to make it otherwise on purpose.

“Intent also entrenches in doctrine the assumption that the social world is equal other than in a few exceptional situations in which bad apple individuals set out to make it otherwise on purpose.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Lacking a substantive grasp of the role of reproduction in sex inequality, the Supreme Court has found that discrimination against pregnant people is not discrimination based on sex, although Congress has taken the opposite view in some areas.

“Lacking a substantive grasp of the role of reproduction in sex inequality, the Supreme Court has found that discrimination against pregnant people is not discrimination based on sex, 36 although Congress has taken the opposite view in some areas within its power.”

• cites [36]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [37]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Both facial and impact discrimination are real, but neither is the only measure of discrimination and hardly exhausts its reality.

“Both facial and impact discrimination are real, in other words, but neither is the only measure of discrimination and hardly exhausts its reality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Sub rosa, the substance of the facts of cases animated by substantive inequality do affect the doctrinal moves on the surface.

“Sub rosa, the substance of the facts of cases animated by substantive inequality do affect the doctrinal moves on the surface.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Equality began to be understood as substantive in Canada in 1989 in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, which repudiated the Aristotelian likes-alike, unlikes-unalike approach and replaced it with a substantive test of historical disadvantage on enumerated and akin concrete grounds.

“Equality began to be understood as substantive in Canada in 1989 in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, which repudiated the Aristotelian -likes alike, unlikes unalike‖ approach for the first time in history and replaced it with a substantive test of historical disadvantage on enumerated and akin concrete grounds.”

• cites Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 (Can.)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Litigating an equality case for a plaintiff often revolves around efforts to shoehorn the facts and context into a doctrinal straightjacket that is dead set on making the outcome turn on anything but.

“Litigating an equality case for a plaintiff, as a result, often revolves around efforts to shoehorn the facts and context before the court into a doctrinal straightjacket that is dead set on making the outcome turn on anything but.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The reason for this lack is a failure to see the substance of inequality that particular cases present.

“The reason for this lack is a failure to see the substance of inequality that particular cases present.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

When courts fail to grasp hierarchy, they cast about for a way to express what is unequal about inequality.

“The Canadian example illustrates that when courts fail to grasp the nettle of hierarchy, they cast about, at sea for a way to express what is unequal about inequality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

This would not be needed if the tilt of white privilege or male dominance, historic and extending into the present, was identified.

“This would not be needed if the tilt of white privilege or male dominance, historic and extending into the present-the barrel problem of substance-was identified.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Ontario v. M&H inaugurated the current fervor for dignity as the test for equality; the material inequalities attendant to non-recognition of same-sex partners as spouses apparently was not enough.

“Ontario v. M&H 43 inaugurated the current fervor for dignity as the test for equality.The material inequalities attendant to non-recognition of same-sex partners as spouses apparently was not enough.”

• cites Ontario v. M&H, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 (Can.)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Substantive inequality follows the substance of the inequality in question, so the first issue is whether the legally challenged inequality is part of the socially prior inequality.

“Substantive inequality follows the substance of the inequality in question, so the first issue is whether the legally challenged inequality is part of the socially prior inequality.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Sexual harassment is recognized as gender-based in substance but is not necessarily either facial or impact in form.

“Sexual harassment is recognized as gender-based in substance but is not necessarily either facial or impact in form.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Intent fills an apparent psychological need for a substantive wrongness and impelling force that disparate treatment of a group seems inexplicably to lack.

“Intent, variously called also motive, purpose, or animus, although the Supreme Court has never said why on principle it is required in constitutional discrimination cases, fills an apparent psychological need in some for a substantive wrongness and impelling force that treating less well a substantial disproportion of people of one group, or a single person because of their group membership, seems”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Courts can adopt a substantive equality approach without saying so, as the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly done, with benefits in particular cases but without fully unlocking its transformative potential.

“Courts can also adopt a substantive equality approach without saying so, as the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly done, 47 with benefits in particular cases but without fully unlocking the transformative potential of a substantive equality jurisprudence.”

• cites R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, 871-89 (Can.)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The shibboleth that with equality there can be no agreement on substance but people can come together on empty abstractions supports this arrangement and is another way entrenched power controls the real and how it is seen.

“Supporting this arrangement is the shibboleth that, with equality, there can be no agreement on substance, but people can come together on empty abstractions.This is just another way entrenched powerthe perspective from the top of the inequality hierarchycontrols the real and how it is seen and authoritatively contended with.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Intent as a requirement supplies a veneer of moral negativity to acts that, although disparate, are otherwise not seen as unequal on a group basis.

“Intent as a requirement supplies a veneer of moral negativity to acts that, although disparate, are otherwise not seen as unequal on a group basis.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

A substantive approach can also fail to hit the target; the substance of inequality is open to discussion.

“A substantive approach, no silver bullet just because it is called that, can also fail to hit the target.The substance of inequality is, obviously, open to discussion.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Typically those realities can be invoked by litigants, if at all, only by inference or trick mirrors, because the terms and tests keep the determination of equality away from open engagement with them; nothing is openly allowed to turn on reality.

“But typically those realities can be invoked by litigants, if at all, by inference or trick mirrors, because the terms and tests on which the determination of whether a statute or practice is equal has been kept as far away as possible from open engagement with them.Nothing is openly allowed to turn on reality.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

With litigants precluded from talking openly about substance, whatever anyone cares about emerges in hypotheticals that increasingly dominate Supreme Court arguments, frequently overwhelming the people and situations directly at stake.

“With litigants precluded from talking openly about substance, whatever anyone cares about emerges, often in pretzeled form, in those hypotheticals that increasingly dominate Supreme Court arguments, frequently overwhelming the people and situations directly at stake.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

If inequality were understood in terms of its specific hierarchical substance, which is virtually always material as well as dignitary, inequality's material dimensions would not be covered up.

“If inequality were understood in terms of its specific hierarchical substance, which is virtually always material as well as dignitary, all this would be evident, and inequality's material dimensions would not be covered up.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The intent requirement in disparate impact cases is usually impossible to prove and may be seen as an attempt to fill the void at the center of equal protection.

“The intent requirement in disparate impact cases, 33 apart from being usually impossible to prove, may be seen as an attempt to fill the void at the center of the existing concept of equal protection, occupying the space or force of deus ex machina where the real substance of inequality would be seen as the driver if it was seen at all.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

The material and dignitary deprivations and violations are substantive indications and consequences of hierarchy, but the hierarchy itself defines the core inequality problem.

“The resulting material and dignitary deprivations and violations are substantive indications and consequences of this hierarchy, but it is the hierarchy itself that defines the core inequality problem.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

Under gender hierarchy, women are not a demographic with shared biological features but a social group formed by gender inequality in all of its substantive domains, which are sexual and economic, among others.

“Under gender hierarchy, women in this sense are not what the standard equality approach imagines them to be: a demographic with shared biological features.Women are a social group formed by gender inequality in all of its substantive domains, which are sexual and economic, among others.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Supreme Court adopted the due process test of deliberate indifference for school liability for sexual harassment under Title IX, which is low, has virtually eliminated institutional liability, and has nothing to do with equality.

“As one instance, faced with the need to establish a liability standard for schools for sexual harassment under Title IX, the Supreme Court adopted the due process test of -deliberate indifference,‖ 53 which is not only low, and has not only virtually eliminated institutional liability for sexual harassment in education, but has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with procedural due”

• cites [53]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Gender is the unequal social system attributed to sex, the central myth of which is that gender hierarchy is natural.

“Gender is the unequal social system attributed to sex, the central myth of which is that gender hierarchy is natural.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Within the conventional formal framework, prostitution does not pose issues of sex discrimination unless a law is facially sex-based or its application is intentionally invidious.

“Within the conventional formal framework, prostitution does not pose issues of sex discrimination unless a law is facially sex-based or its application is intentionally invidious.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

The substance of each inequality is distinctive to each one, but it is hierarchy that makes it an inequality.

“The substance of each inequality, hence the domain in which it operates as a hierarchy, is distinctive to each one, but it is hierarchy that makes it an inequality.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Formal equality asks whether prostitution law treats men and women the same.

“To decide whether prostitution law is sex discriminatory, formal equality asks whether it treats men and women the same.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

If equality were substantively understood in the United States, Reedy v. Evanson would be a sex discrimination case.

“If equality was substantively understood in the United States, the recent Third Circuit case of Reedy v. Evanson 58 would be such a case.”

• cites Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

The inequalities affecting women are often revealed by disparity in numbers compared with men, but the range and depth of the inequality is not exhausted by head-counting, so substantive equality cannot be fully expressed by disparate impact.

“The inequalities that affect the group women are often revealed by disparity in numbers compared with men, but the range and depth, hence reality, of the inequality is not exhausted by head-counting, which is why substantive equality cannot be fully expressed by the doctrine of disparate impact or discrimination in effect, although that is as close as the mainstream United States' approach gets to”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Equality is inherently relational and comparative.

“Inherently, equality is relational and comparative.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

A substantive equality approach does not fully fit into any mainstream equality doctrine and changes not only outcomes but also the circumstances identified as giving rise to equality questions.

“A substantive equality approach, as the foregoing discussion implies, does not fully fit into any mainstream equality doctrine and changes not only the outcomes of discrimination cases but, as importantly if not more so, alters the circumstances that are identified as giving rise to equality questions in the first place.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The U.S. Supreme Court's approach to equal protection on the basis of sex has yet to squarely resolve this.

“It is this that the United States Supreme Court's approach to equal protection on the basis of sex has yet to squarely resolve.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Gender hierarchy is the transnational social system of masculinity over femininity that becomes men over women predicated on the lie of male superiority and female inferiority.

“Gender hierarchy is the transnational social system of masculinity over femininity that becomes men over women predicated on the lie of male superiority and female inferiority.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The substance of substantive inequality can be visited on a single person, so long as it is grounded in the concrete historical discriminatory social reality of group membership.

“The substance of substantive inequality can be visited on a single person, so long as it is grounded in the concrete historical discriminatory social reality of group membership.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Inequality is a fact, and it is finding facts that courts are for.

“Inequality is, accordingly, a fact as well, and it is finding facts that courts are for.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Discrimination in this form does not look like sex classifications modeled on racial classifications; it has its own shape, often the shape of absence.

“Discrimination in this form does not look the way the law expects sex classifications, modeled on racial classifications, to look.It has its own shape, often the shape of absence.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Equality is only secondarily a value and is not basically a matter of morality; primarily it is a fact.

“The point here is, equality is only secondarily a value, and it is not basically a matter of morality, meaning judgments of right and wrong.Primarily, it is a fact.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The essence of inequality is the notion that some are intrinsically more worthy than others, hence justly belong elevated over them, because of the group of which they are a member.

“The essence of inequality is the misanthropic notionmisogynist in the case of women-that some are intrinsically more worthy than others, hence justly belong elevated over them, because of the group of which they are (or are perceived to be) a member.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The nose-counting disparate impact test would show a dramatic disparity in numbers because many more women are sold for sex, but it would not be dispositive of inequality in the standard approach, which looks for intent, or necessarily in the substantive approach, which looks for pre-existing hierarchy.

“The nosecounting disparate impact test would show a dramatic disparity in numbers, though, given that many more women are sold for sex.This indicates something.But it would not be dispositive of inequality in the standard approach, which looks for in- tent, or necessarily in the substantive approach either, which looks for pre-existing hierarchy.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Most pimps are men.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Most prostituted people are women.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

When a society decides that a particular ground is a prohibited basis for discrimination, the question whether the groups defined by that ground are appropriately placed in caste-like arrangements is no longer open for discussion.

“When a society decides that a particular ground is a prohibited basis for discrimination, the question whether the group(s) defined by that ground are appropriately placed in caste-like arrangements, some being treated and considered better than others, is no longer open for discussion.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Reedy neither received the protection of the law of rape as a shield nor was protected from the false prosecution that used state power against her as a sword; these are among the reasons most rapes are not reported.

“She neither received the protection of the law of rape as a shield nor was she protected from the false prosecution that used state power against her as a sword.These are among the reasons that most rapes are not reported.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Most rapes are not reported.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Sex, in reality, is an equality, the sexes being equally similar or equally different as well as equally human.

“Sex, in reality, is an equality, the sexes being equally similar or equally different as well as equally human.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

From a substantive perspective, the social institution of prostitution-selling people for sex-is a gendered activity fundamental to male dominance; it treats people, most of whom are women, all feminized, as objects for sexual use, making them social inferiors and stigmatizing them as human dirt, while laws against pimping are largely unenforced and laws against buying are largely nonexistent.

“From a substantive perspective, the social institution of prostitutionselling people for sex-is a gendered activity that is fundamental to male dominance.It treats people, most of whom are women, all of whom are feminized, as objects for sexual use, making them into social inferiors, stigmatizing them as human dirt, while the laws against pimping are largely unenforced and the laws against buying,”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Most prostituted people are women.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In the substantive approach, equality remains concretely comparative and operates on material rather than ideational ground; since failure to act is as substantively potent as acting, there is no distinction between negative and positive rights.

“In this approach, equality remains concretely comparative and operates on material rather than ideational ground.And since failure to act is as substantively potent as acting, there is no distinction between negative and positive rights.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Absence of accountability for violence against women is so reliable it has become the presence of impunity.

“Absence of accountability for violence against women is so reliable it has become the presence of impunity.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The amicus brief for Reedy could have argued that Evanson used his official position to deprive Reedy of equal protection on the basis of sex by disbelieving her rape report, following standard rape myths, and falsely accusing her of theft because she was a woman accusing a man of sexual assault.

“The amicus brief for Reedy by many groups, 62 had it been a legal argument rather than a policy brief, could have marshaled its strong evidence and cogent analysis to argue that Evanson used his official position to deprive Reedy of equal protection of the laws on the basis of her sex by disbelieving her report of rape, following standard rape myths typical of rape-prone societies, and falsely”

• cites [62]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

No group difference makes one social group another group's inferior or superior; no group characteristic makes everyone in one social group more or less valuable than everyone in another group.

“Obviously, this has nothing whatever to do with the human universality of difference, since no group difference makes one social group another group's inferior or superior.Everything makes everyone different from everyone else, but no group characteristic makes everyone in one social group more or less valuable than everyone in another group.”

• cites [50]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

People are human equals, meaning falsely rendered inferior or superior in society or by the state by group assignment.

“People are human equals, 49 meaning falsely rendered inferior or superior in society or by the state by group assignment.”

• cites [49]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Almost all those prosecuted under a scheme that decriminalizes prostituted people and criminalizes buyers and sellers would predictably be men, and anyone bought or sold for sex would not be prosecuted due to being substantively in a female/subordinate position regardless of sex.

“Almost all those who would be prosecuted under such a scheme, as with rape laws, would predictably be men, either as sellers or buyers of others, a substantively male dominant behavior.Anyone bought or sold for sex would not be prosecuted, due to being substantively in a female/subordinate position, regardless of their sex.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Inequality is actualized concretely in specific domains for each inequality, often intersecting and overlapping.

“It is actualized concretely in specific domains for each inequality, often intersecting and overlapping.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Absent are laws that address crimes of misogyny as they actually happen, enforcement of laws that might help, and legal standards that find these absences illegal.

“Absent are laws that address these crimes of misogyny as they actually happen.Ab- sent is enforcement of laws that do exist that might help.Absent are legal standards that find any of these absences illegal.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The absence of effective laws and law enforcement against those who exploit people in prostitution is substantive sex discrimination, as is the typical law enforcement pattern of criminalizing prostituted people.

“The absence of effective laws and law enforcement against those who, in substance, exploit people in prostitution is substantive sex discrimination, as is the typical law enforcement pattern of criminalizing prostituted people.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Domestic battering is a gender crime, a cornerstone of male dominance as a substantive system.

“Domestic battering, in other words, is a gender crime, a cornerstone of male dominance as a substantive system.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Battering men manipulate and threaten their victims to keep them from testifying against them, including with promises to change.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Often these men are the fathers of the women's children; the women want to believe them and frequently continue to love them, a dynamic difficult to separate from the self-annihilation of traumatic bonding.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Much of the most vicious substance of sex inequality has gone missing in U.S. law.

“If much of the most vicious substance of sex inequality, taken on its own terms rather than calling it anything else or pursuing it by analogy to something else, has gone missing in U.S. law-even if no authority has denied that violence against women is sex discriminatory, and the U.S. Congress once adopted this theory 65 -the international order has found it.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

If the home is the most dangerous place for women, a usable firearm makes it even more so.

“If the home is the most dangerous place for women, a usable firearm makes it even more so.96”

• cites Wendy Cukier & James Cairns, Gender, Attitudes and the Regulation of Small Arms: Implications for Action, in SEXED PISTOLS: THE GENDERED IMPACTS OF SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS 18, 21-24 (Vanessa Farr et al. eds., 2009)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

This latest interpretation of the Confrontation Clause has predictably disastrous implications for security and justice for battered women and has a disproportionate impact on women in a fairly conventional sense: neutral on its face but systematically disadvantaging one sex.

“This latest interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, with predictably disastrous implications for security and justice for battered women, even has a disproportionate impact on women in a fairly conventional sense: neutral on its face but systematically disadvantaging one sex, in this case the sex that is disempowered through the acts for which the State is seeking criminal redress, against a”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Forfeiture of the right of confrontation when the defendant makes the declarant unavailable could help the prosecution but may prove impossible to use if the same sex inequalities preclude access to the evidence needed to establish it.

“Forfeiture of the right of confrontation when the defendant makes the declarant unavailable could help the prosecution but may prove impossible to use if the same sex inequalities preclude access to the evidence needed to establish it.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In the recent Confrontation Clause cases, instead of preventing the state from lining up behind the battering man, as the Casey plurality did, the hand of the batterer is strengthened by the hand of the Court.

“In the recent Confrontation Clause cases, instead of preventing the state from lining up behind the battering man, as the Casey plurality did, the hand of the batterer is strengthened by the hand of the Court.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

That men at the same time became better able to exercise tyranny over women was not noticed by the Court; nor was what half the population might perceive, want, or expect, then or now, or its absence of being perceived.

“That men at the same time became better able to exercise tyranny over women was not noticed by the Court; nor was what half the population might perceive, want, or expect, then or now, or its absence of being perceived.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The two points never come together in the analysis that precluding discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment sense requires facing the socially unequal distribution of perpetrators and victims of gun violence on the basis of sex and gender.

“But the two points never come together in the analysis that precluding discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment sense requires facing the socially unequal distribution of perpetrators and victims of gun violence on the basis of sex and gender.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Lininger is rightly apprehensive that the requirement of live testimony by accusers produced by the Crawford line may tempt defendants to intimidate or even kill their victims before trial because the unavailability of the victim may foreclose any possibility of prosecution.

“Lininger is rightly apprehensive that the requirement of live testimony by accusers produced by the Crawford line -may tempt defendants to intimidate or even kill their victims before trial because the unavailability of the victim may foreclose any possibility of prosecution.‖88”

• cites Lininger, supra note 79, at 284-85Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Batterers are legally armed, their victims legally further disarmed, in the silence of the constitutional command that laws protect equally.

“Batterers are legally armed, their victims legally further disarmed, in the silence of the constitutional command that laws protect equally.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

Incorporating substantive reality into the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws would improve the climate and legal foundation for sex equality cases.

“But so too would incorporating substantive reality into the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.121”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Ratification of CEDAW, a substantive treaty, would improve the climate as well as the legal foundation for sex equality cases, as could an Equal Rights Amendment.

“Certainly the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, a substantive treaty, would improve the climate as well as the legal foundation for sex equality cases, as could an Equal Rights Amendment.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Substantive equality principles, rather than requiring that reality fit existing legal equality interpretation, could transform inequality by recognizing substance-the reality of inequality-as what it is.

“Substantive equality principles, rather than requiring that reality fit existing legal equality interpretation, could transform inequality by recognizing substance-the reality of inequality-as what it is.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In both situations, these provisions are now being used to extend men's power over women with the backing of the state, with no inquiry into their abuse of power and use of coercion in the process.

“In both situations, these provisions are now being used to extend men's power over women with the backing of the state, with no inquiry into their abuse of power and use of coercion in the process.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In both areas, it was men's concern over the power of the state that gave rise to the rights in the first place.

“In both areas, it was men's concern over the power of the state that gave rise to the rights in the first place.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

However doctrinally achieved, cognizance of the substance of gender could not leave these cases untouched.

“However doctrinally achieved, 120 cognizance of the substance of gender could not leave these cases untouched.”