LEADER 03781nam 22005175 450 001 9910164900103321 005 20230809222724.0 010 $a1-4798-4093-9 024 7 $a10.18574/9781479840939 035 $a(CKB)3710000001064554 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4714303 035 $a(DE-B1597)548385 035 $a(DE-B1597)9781479840939 035 $a(OCoLC)972734001 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000001064554 100 $a20200608h20172017 fg 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $2rdacontent 182 $2rdamedia 183 $2rdacarrier 200 10$aAnimus $eA Short Introduction to Bias in the Law /$fWilliam D. Araiza, William D. Araiza 210 1$aNew York, NY : $cNew York University Press, $d[2017] 210 4$dİ2017 215 $a1 online resource (134 pages) 225 0 $aLegal Latin in Practice 311 $a1-4798-4603-1 327 $tFrontmatter -- $tContents -- $tAcknowledgments -- $tIntroduction -- $t1. Class Legislation and the Prehistory of Animus -- $t2. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno -- $t3. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center -- $t4. Romer and Lawrence -- $t5. United States v. Windsor -- $t6. What?s Wrong with Subjective Dislike? -- $t7. Objectively Objectionable -- $t8. The Doctrinal Uniqueness of Animus -- $t9. The Elusive Search for Animus -- $t10. How Much Animus Is Enough? And What Should We Do about It? -- $t11. Applying What We Have Learned -- $t12. Obergefell and Animus -- $tConclusion -- $tNotes -- $tAbout the Author 330 $aAn introduction to the legal concept of unconstitutional bias.If a town council denies a zoning permit for a group home for intellectually disabled persons because residents don?t want ?those kinds of people? in the neighborhood, the town?s decision is motivated by the public?s dislike of a particular group. Constitutional law calls this rationale ?animus.?Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly turned to the concept of animus to explain why some instances of discrimination are unconstitutional. However, the Court?s condemnation of animus fails to address some serious questions. How can animus on the part of people and institutions be uncovered? Does mere opposition to a particular group?s equality claims constitute animus? Does the concept of animus have roots in the Constitution?Animus engages these important questions, offering an original and provocative introduction to this type of unconstitutional bias. William Araiza analyzes some of the modern Supreme Court?s most important discrimination cases through the lens of animus, tracing the concept from nineteenth century legal doctrine to today?s landmark cases, including Obergefell vs. Hodges and United States v. Windsor, both related to the legal rights of same-sex couples. Animus humanizes what might otherwise be an abstract legal question, illustrating what constitutes animus, and why the prohibition against it matters more today than ever in our pluralistic society. 606 $aEquality before the law$zUnited States 606 $aDiscrimination$xLaw and legislation$zUnited States 606 $aSociological jurisprudence$zUnited States 606 $aConstitutional law$zUnited States 615 0$aEquality before the law 615 0$aDiscrimination$xLaw and legislation 615 0$aSociological jurisprudence 615 0$aConstitutional law 676 $a340/.11 700 $aAraiza$b William D., $4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$01153704 702 $aAraiza$b William D., $4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut 801 0$bDE-B1597 801 1$bDE-B1597 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910164900103321 996 $aAnimus$92889272 997 $aUNINA