2 Corrected typos.
source | link

Source: 'Heavy Lifting', by Dahlia Lithwick, BA, JD. (I include post-nomials to lend credence to this)

Finally, Caitlin Halligan has 30 minutes to represent UPS. Her argument is that failure to accommodate doesn’t make UPS discriminatory but rather “pregnancy-blind.” Halligan will spend much of that time being pounded by Justice Elena Kagan, who—in a protracted one-on-one—will ask her 10 different versions of this same question: “So your reading of the statute basically makes everything after the semicolon completely superfluous?” (The troublesome semicoloned sentence is, admittedly, a little clunky: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.”) Kagan slowly builds to the accusation that under Halligan’s reading of the statute, everything after the semicolon is a “kind of double redundacyredundancy.” It’s a redundancy, if you will, that “THAT becomes redundant even within the redundancy.”

Ah. The glamour.

1. How do you determine/deduce the bolded's meaning? The first that is a relative pronoun, but what's the antecedent of the second THAT, a demonstrative pronoun, (which I myself capitalised for discrimination) ?

2. What's a double redundacyredundancy?

Source: 'Heavy Lifting', by Dahlia Lithwick, BA, JD. (I include post-nomials to lend credence to this)

Finally, Caitlin Halligan has 30 minutes to represent UPS. Her argument is that failure to accommodate doesn’t make UPS discriminatory but rather “pregnancy-blind.” Halligan will spend much of that time being pounded by Justice Elena Kagan, who—in a protracted one-on-one—will ask her 10 different versions of this same question: “So your reading of the statute basically makes everything after the semicolon completely superfluous?” (The troublesome semicoloned sentence is, admittedly, a little clunky: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.”) Kagan slowly builds to the accusation that under Halligan’s reading of the statute, everything after the semicolon is a “kind of double redundacy.” It’s a redundancy, if you will, that “THAT becomes redundant even within the redundancy.”

Ah. The glamour.

1. How do you determine/deduce the bolded's meaning? The first that is a relative pronoun, but what's the antecedent of the second THAT, a demonstrative pronoun, (which I myself capitalised for discrimination) ?

2. What's a double redundacy?

Source: 'Heavy Lifting', by Dahlia Lithwick, BA, JD. (I include post-nomials to lend credence to this)

Finally, Caitlin Halligan has 30 minutes to represent UPS. Her argument is that failure to accommodate doesn’t make UPS discriminatory but rather “pregnancy-blind.” Halligan will spend much of that time being pounded by Justice Elena Kagan, who—in a protracted one-on-one—will ask her 10 different versions of this same question: “So your reading of the statute basically makes everything after the semicolon completely superfluous?” (The troublesome semicoloned sentence is, admittedly, a little clunky: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.”) Kagan slowly builds to the accusation that under Halligan’s reading of the statute, everything after the semicolon is a “kind of double redundancy.” It’s a redundancy, if you will, that “THAT becomes redundant even within the redundancy.”

Ah. The glamour.

1. How do you determine/deduce the bolded's meaning? The first that is a relative pronoun, but what's the antecedent of the second THAT, a demonstrative pronoun, (which I myself capitalised for discrimination) ?

2. What's a double redundancy?

1
source | link

How to analyse/decompose ' a redundancy ... that “that becomes redundant even within the redundancy" '?

Source: 'Heavy Lifting', by Dahlia Lithwick, BA, JD. (I include post-nomials to lend credence to this)

Finally, Caitlin Halligan has 30 minutes to represent UPS. Her argument is that failure to accommodate doesn’t make UPS discriminatory but rather “pregnancy-blind.” Halligan will spend much of that time being pounded by Justice Elena Kagan, who—in a protracted one-on-one—will ask her 10 different versions of this same question: “So your reading of the statute basically makes everything after the semicolon completely superfluous?” (The troublesome semicoloned sentence is, admittedly, a little clunky: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.”) Kagan slowly builds to the accusation that under Halligan’s reading of the statute, everything after the semicolon is a “kind of double redundacy.” It’s a redundancy, if you will, that “THAT becomes redundant even within the redundancy.”

Ah. The glamour.

1. How do you determine/deduce the bolded's meaning? The first that is a relative pronoun, but what's the antecedent of the second THAT, a demonstrative pronoun, (which I myself capitalised for discrimination) ?

2. What's a double redundacy?