Politics

I'm more of a commenter than the type to post articles I've read - but I'm curious what everyone thinks about this situation. To me, it's 1) practically an admission of guilt because an innocent person would expect to be vindicated and it would help them win in an election and 2) another attempt to obstruct justice because he's hoping a Republican (or himself) would be president after the election and pardon him.

Thoughts?

The gist:

Nearly half a century ago, however, in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977), the Supreme Court announced that an “undue hardship” exists if accommodating such a request would require an employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost.” The Latin phrase “de minimis” refers to a burden that is so small or trifling as to be unworthy of consideration.

Pretty much everyone involved in this case, including all nine justices, agree that this “more than a de minimis cost” standard is wrong. As Alito writes, “in common parlance, a ‘hardship’ is, at a minimum, ‘something hard to bear.’” So an employer shouldn’t be able to show an undue “hardship” merely by showing that they will be hit with a trifling expense.

Groff repudiates this much-loathed line from Hardison. And it replaces Hardison’s “more than a de minimis cost” framework with a new rule, which requires courts hearing cases about religious accommodations to ask “whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer’s business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test.”

I'll admit, I was somewhat worried about this one.

Not quite US political news, but hey, everything is political now. Also, relevant, since I use the internet.