436 Comments
User's avatar
Shananigan's avatar

So it's really like the "undue burdern" thing.

Expand full comment
Beargorod People's Recublic's avatar

Basically, the effect of that ruling was to severely narrow the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the ADA, one must experience a "substantial limitation" on "one or more major life activities" in order for the Act to kick in and require one's employer to provide a reasonable accommodation for one's disability. In the Sutton case, Scalia and company reasoned that, if a workplace accommodation functions to reduce or remove your limitation, then your disability must not have been all that "substantial" in the first place. So basically, many/most folks whose accommodation would make them able to work would end up not qualifying for an accommodation in the first place.

As an example, I'm Type I diabetic, but with no complications thus far. As a result, the only accommodations I ever need are the ability to take 30-45 seconds here and there to test my blood sugar or take an insulin shot, and the ability to keep a small amount of sugar close at hand for insulin reactions (which require immediate treatment; a can or bottle of soda pop is usually enough). The need to manually manage my metabolism in this way is probably a substantial limitation on my major life activities -- but the management itself vaporizes the problem and leaves me completely able to work. If I had an employer whose labor rules precluded my diabetic activities and who wanted to be a real slapnuts about it, s/he could argue that under Sutton's reading of the ADA, I'm not even disabled.

Expand full comment
Crystalclear12's avatar

That would be a yes.

Expand full comment
RickK's avatar

What are Christ sports? Do you have to dunk your magic wafer in the grape juice from way back at the free throw line or something?

Expand full comment
Liz Dye's avatar

😁

Expand full comment
Slamtundra's avatar

So can somebody smart explain to me why the apparent purgery is apparently no big deal?

Expand full comment
Slamtundra's avatar

Yeah,that was fantastic!

Expand full comment
phoenix00's avatar

Kavanaugh just warned about "inserting ourselves into the legislative process," and an aide had to rush in to wipe a puddle of little Cruzes off the table.Consider. Dinner. Ruined.

(translation: great job!)

Expand full comment
Doctoryy Dilettanteyy Debbyy's avatar

Best Paraphrase Ever.

Expand full comment
Robert Gibson's avatar

California and New York?

Is the rule that we have to 'balance the ticket' still in effect?

Expand full comment
sarafina's avatar

Why does Warcriminal Bush have:

The PRA representative of former President George W. Bush,

---who has an independent right of access to Presidential records of his administration---

, is also engaged in a separate process to review and provide records to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Expand full comment
sarafina's avatar

That is one of life's mysteries.

Expand full comment
A Tad  Sick of the Stench's avatar

Actual McConnell rule: ' Haha. We win. Fuck you.'

Expand full comment
H0mer0's avatar

sorry, "the [cadence] catches [me] and [I] fall down."

Expand full comment
H0mer0's avatar

what was the kind of coffee that Walter and Little Lebowski dumped out in order to carry Donny's remains?

Expand full comment
AngryKatie's avatar

They get extra time for each interruption, so it might be strategic.

Expand full comment