What Mr. Bumble says in Charles Dickens’ "Oliver Twist" also applies to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulingTuesday on workplace discrimination: "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot."
The conservative majority ruled that the law only allows federal claims of pay discrimination if employees file a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. But as dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, employees often don’t know until well after that deadline that their pay was unfair, given the confidentiality of salaries.
That’s what happened to the plaintiff in this particular case, who learned late in her nearly 20-year career — via an anonymous e-mail — that she received dramatically less pay than the 16 men who had held the same position at a Goodyear Tire plant in Alabama.
If that hard deadline is really what the law requires, then Congress needs to change the law.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
100 Comments
If that hard deadline is really what the law requires, then Congress needs to change the law.Posted by Phillip Brownlee
exactly. It is not the court’s responsibility to change the law.
I have only scanned thru both the majority opinion written by Alito, and the dissenting opinion written by Ginsberg. It seems on the surface, though I would need to read through far more thoroughly than I have, that the majority opinion is correct. That is NOT to say the law shouldn;t be changed. That should be a matter for the legislature
Darn those activist judges
That’s what happens when the Supreme Court is politicized. For the Democratic party to vote the two latest neo-cons in shows there is a serious problem on the beltway.
The little guy gets the shaft again . . . deja vu all over again.
I think you mean little “gal” in this case.
Okay, compromise: little “people”.
Well, at least their not sexist in their treatment of the “little people”.
Just another prime example of where loyalties lie. Corporations, big business with no accountiblity is soon to come. They rob, steal, and otherwise deceive to get to the bottomline. Sad day when the working “stiff” has no rights and are basically slaves to industry.
If the law is a ass, look no further than the people who made it. Asses can be bought and sold. They also make loopholes for their fellow asses. They shouldn’t be elected to high office or nominated to the judiciary. Remember that when you go to the polls.
Get the law changed through the legislature. Get retirement accounts (including those from the unions) to hold big business an corporations accountable. Don;t invest in a single company or mutual fund that runs afoul your own beliefs in how companies should treat people. Don;t buy their products or what they are selling if they are a retailer. Propose legislation fo fix what you perceive to be wrong. Find people that support your ideals willing to run for office and support them with time, talens, and money. Change the system. it can be done. it is not easy.
Sorry guys, its NOT the supremes job to right poorly thought out and written laws. They applied it as its written.
If they want it different, then write it that way. This has been thoroughly discussed on some lawyer blog types…
http://volokh.com/posts/1180548166.shtml
It apparently depends on when “when” is….so to speak. Apparently when it started not when it was found out. Not good, but that is the way its worded. Maybe congress will fix it.
You can bet Big Business won’t let the law be changed.
Follow the money.
How stunning that we should be talking about the interpretation of laws in a city where a traffic court judge ruled (in favor of his pal the DA) on what was essentially a constitutional question. How cute that we talk about laws in a city where a mass murderer and his staff are deemed above the law by both the City Attorney and the DA.
This bird cage liner has no credibility whatsoever in discussing law, its interpretation, or implementation given its silence on the pathetic state of the legal system in its own sphere of influence.
Those that oppose big business and corporate greed are targeted and crushed. Getting someone elected that is not on the corporate teet is not just challenging but almost impossible. The more corporate mergers that happen will make this more previlent.
Okay, so what SCOTUS is saying is this: If you’re clever enough and criminal enough to be able to hide the admitted fact that you broke the law, then knowingly through policy KEPT that violation hidden, you get off without even a slap on the wrist. Right?
Pretty much Tom. They said that you have 180 days from your date of hire to file a pay discrimination suit. Hire an employee and pay them $1/hr less than an equal employee…..then it is up to the employee that is paid less to figure out that he is paid less and file suit(all within 180 days)
By mass murderer you are referring to Dr Tiller Melvin? Are you a terrorist?
Making life better and better for the already rich . . .
That’s the Republican way!
Capn
I there any restriction, in your mind, on what the Supreme Court can NOT do?
Would you have the Courts declare war?
You seem to think it is OK for the Court to legislate, so please tell us what divisions of power you still respect?
If you dont like the law, elect leaders to change the law.
Judges should only interpret the laws that are already on the books.
I am surprised there are not a bunch of right-wingers on here applauding the SCOTUS decision.
In many cases in the last few years the right-wing has bitched about ‘activists judges’ that try to legislate from the bench. Now the SCOTUS gives a decision based upon the wording of the law and make no attempt to change the law, this should be a banner decision for the right-wingers.
hehe, looks like I struck a nerve.
The old saying used to be, “justice delayed, justice denied.”
Who knew that the reactionary SCOTUS would WRITE IT INTO LAW . . .
You were discriminated against by a huge company for 20 years before you realized it?
Too bad, sucka.
Now, who’s up for 18 holes and drinks at the bar?
This is just another reason for you WOMEN to get off your ASS and register and VOTE DEMOCRAT in 2008! Only Congress can fix this mess and you know the Republicans will NOT fix it so if you want it fixed and you want equality and you want reproductive freedom then YOU need to register and VOTE!
I’d love to hit the links Capn, but I got some folks whose salaries need cut…(insert evil laugh here)
And, as a side bar, we need a law that OUTLAWS the confidentiality of pay and salary rates of all employees. Every business should be required to post pay rates for every job title every year so that every employee can see what every other employee earns. It is a FACT that when employees know what others in their field and in their business make, they usually get paid more.
Well Kev,
I don’t think so. First of all there is such a thing as privacy. When I worked for the various aircraft companies I really didn’t want everyone to know what I made. Especially when I was working contract labor for Raytheon Service Company. I was making so much that it embarrased me!
Then from the companies viewpoint they should only have to justify the wages paid to the individual involved.
Hank
Capn:
You were asked a legitimate question, but you dodged it. The SCOTUS applied the law as written. You may not like that law, it may be a bad law. But are you saying that the SCOTUS should have simply ignored the language Congress passed, and impose what it believes should be the law?
You accuse conservatives of misapplying the label “judicial activism” for political benefit. Perhaps. But what you appear to believe the SCOTUS should have done in this case is the very definition of judicial activism; appropriately, the SCOTUS declined to appoint themselves a superlegislature and rewrite the law. Just what else should the judiciary apppoint themselves high priests of?
So rather than recognize that the law is bad law (and it may well be), it’s just easier to use the judiciary as whipping boy, isn’t it?
Kev, this has nothing to do with Democrats or Republican…they’re all bought and sold on a regular basis.
The law that was challenged was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If she had challenged the law under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, she stood a chance, as it has no time limit. Looks like she had pretty poor lawyers who didn’t know the difference.
As far as what the SCOTUS ruled, they use other laws and statutes to justify their decisions all the time. So just the fact that they know what the federal law is on discrimination like this, they should have applied it to this one as well. It was an excuse to give the nod to businesses.
Please! The judges (and I use that term loosely) put their own ideas on this. It’s crap, fully utterly crap.
I also agree with Kev that there needs to be some accountability on wage disparity…where someone can go and look up, and maybe not necessarily see WHO is earning what, but see how they rank compared to others. I think that the companies should be mandated to report how much they’re paying by percentage….by race AND sex.
“. . . they use other laws and statutes to justify their decisions all the time.”
1) care to back that up?2) even if true, how is that relevant? This case was about THIS law.
So, if Capn won’t touch this one, how ’bout you? Just what other laws do you think the high priests should annoint themselves a superlegislature on? How it it that apparantly you believe that judges, if they think a law is a bad law, should just rewrite it - just make it up? And where does that authority begin and end?
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the liberal idiots in the media. The justices enforced the law that is on the books, but this moron Brownlee wanted them to ignore the law of the land and make up their own rules. Wake up! Judges aren’t elected, we don’t want them to be activists! We want them to interpret the laws established by our duly elected representatives. If the law is bad, right an article about how congress should change it, but don’t attack the Supreme Court for doing the job it was created for. I think the bigger story is why aren’t we worried about the four dissenters who think it’s their job to ignore black-letter law in favor of their own opinions? The only ‘ass’ here is Brownlee, and those who are stupid enough to think like him.
GMC have you ever listened to the Supreme Court arguments? They sit there all day long and quote other rulings and other cases and laws all day long, they use those to justify the arguments they’re making in this particular case.
That’s why they have all these people who know so much about law doing these things, because they KNOW what laws and rulings are in place that are relevant to other laws and rulings.
GMC–
You really are a hoot, man.
Like there isn’t a thousand different ways they could interprete what “180 days” means.
For instance, it could mean 180 days after her last paycheck, since the discrimination was on-going.
I assume that the 4 justices who weren’t CONs used exactly this line of reasoning.
Five CONs had no problem “super-legislating” that Florida State Law should be overridden by their arbitrary and non-precident setting Bush v Gore decision, the decision that rivals Dred Scot and Plessy v Ferguson as the worst Supreme Court decision ever.
Bush = Worst President Ever.His Supreme Court = Worst Court Ever.
P-mom
I’ve ARGUED before appellate courts, though not before the SCOTUS (not yet!!! maybe someday . . . ).
While it’s not always exactly clear, those precedents and laws they cite lead to the outcome, not the other way around. It’s not easy, and certainly it’s often not a black letter application of law; after all, that’s why these cases to the SCOTUS - they are the difficult cases, without easy answers.
But the SCOTUS doesn’t just “make it up.” There is a logical rationality to their decisions, even those I disagree with (usually!!). They are not free to simply do what they want.
Have you read the decision? I’ve read the evaluation and summaries of this decision, but since this is not really my area of law, not the actual decision itself. As I understand it, the decision is grounded in the language of Title VII. Blame Congress for that language, not the court.
GMC–
Parse it however you want in lawyer speak.
Down on the farm, people know bullsh*t by its smell.
This woman was discriminated against because of her gender.
Period.
Looks like another winning campaign issue in 2008 . . .
Capn:
Whatever. And your law degree is from . . . where . . . exactly?
And you avoided the question with the logic of name calling.
180 days after last paycheck. Does the statute authorize that? Does the result of a discriminatory decision, perhaps years ago, mean the discrimination is ongoing? And who is to decide that? If the statute does not authorize same, is the court justified in simply substituting the language you prefer? Would you argue the same freedom to judges to advocate an outcome you don’t prefer?
You evaluate the decisions by outcome only. But that’s not the whole story; in many cases, it’s not even the most important story. More important, in the long run, than the policy made is just WHO makes that policy.
I’ve never understood why so many liberals, who claim to believe in democracy over all else, are so anxious to hand over the reigns of that democracy to an unelected body that is hardly representative of the republic. The only rationale I can determine is that you are governed by outcome, rather than process. And the dedication to democracy exists only as long as the results of that “democracy” are the desired ones. But real democracy is not about outcome, it’s all about process.
But when you get your marching orders from DU or DailyKos, this is what you get.
“This woman was discriminated against because of her gender.”
Perhaps. But that was not the legal issue before the court, was it?
And just how many out of 100 people have even heard of this case, much less have any understanding of it. It’s clear you don’t even WANT to understand it, just condemn the outcome.
That’s the party line, isn’t it?
Yes, you know much more about the law than I do. That’s a given.
But there’s no way you can square justice with this outcome.
Ditto for Bush v Gore.
I’m sure it was just a coincidence that the winner was a huge multinational corporation and the loser was a common worker.
Pure coincidence.
As for handing the will of the majority over to an unelected minority, that’s what 5 CON judges did in Bush v Gore.
You don’t have any problem with the “process” of that one, do you?
But go ahead and get the last word . . . you always do.
I’m watching a movie.
“are so anxious to hand over the reigns of that democracy to an unelected body that is hardly representative of the republic.”
So, where do these unelected judges come from? Do they crawl out from the wood work? Are they UFO’s? Illegal aliens?
Nope.
If they are appointed, they are appointed by our elected executives. Most are approved by our elected representatives.
They are representative of the republic.
Those that are not, are elected by the populous.
The judges are hardly folks that just showed up, applied for the job and were given the power to legislate from the bench.
Courts don’t decide cases on “justice,” Capn. I know that’s not something we often say, but it’s so. Justice is flexible, meaning many different things to many different people.
No, judges decide (or should decide) cases on law. That’s much more rigid, and provides predicibility of outcome, so people can make decisions with relative certainty about the outcome of their decisions.
Law is not absolute certainty either, of course. Hard cases make hard law, and as noted before, rarely do cases before SCOTUS break on easy black letter law. But it provides much more reliability than “justice.”
It’s not perfect. And judges come to courts with worldviews, just as you and I do. But they are bound, or at least limited, by the legal framework around them. Most important of that is the language of the text being applied.
It doesn’t fit the popular conception of courts, of course, but most people have no idea how trial courts work, let alone the arcania of the appellate process. So it’s easier to bash outcome.
And it’s the party line, in your case.
And ya know, Capn, I don’t often get a surrender from you.
But I’ll take this one.
WS
True enough. But it is often said that our representatives should “look like us.”
Does the judiciary, especially, the Federal appellate judiciary, look like us? You gotta be kidding.
They come overwhelmingly from the strata of society you hate - those with money, connections, and privilege. They are overwhelmingly from east coast Ivy League schools, and the best top tier law schools; universities and law schools out of reach of the vast majority of us (certainly out of my reach!). Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, etc.
They run in tight circles, often going from law school, to judicial clerkships, to teaching and professorships at law schools, to the judiciary. Many have little experience in real legal practice, let alone real world work outside the tight ivory tower circle of elite law.
And these are the people we want making POLICY in a democracy?!?!!!
Surely you jest.
I propose we boycott Goodyear for this whole thing.
She shouldn’t have had to take it all the way to the SCOTUS in the first place.
On another thread, GMC, you decried politicians that would make decisions based on popular opinion and opinion polls. Wouldn’t you want judges, especially judges deciding constitutional matters, to be free of concerns of popular sentiment?
That is why Federal Judges are appointed for life - so that they ARE free from concerns of public opinion.
Absolutely, WS. No disagreement there.
But it appears that many of my colleagues (P-mom, for one) on this thread do not agree. What they want is an OUTCOME that they like, regardless of the process which drives this (and many other) decision.
Here’s the bottom line: what does the STATUTE at issue say, given it’s context in related and surrounding statues, and it’s history of appliation in the courts? The majority grounded it’s decision in the language of that statute. Alito may well have regretted the outcome even as he announced it (I know I’ve found myself wishing the outcome of a particular case was different, but I’m bound by the law, not my own wishes - as is the judge). But Alito is bound by the law, as he reads it given his most faithful efforts, if he is true to his oath. And I’m still ready to believe that most judges, most of the time, try to do what the law requires, as they see it. Not what they would prefer.
I’v yet to see an opponent of this decision criticize it on LEGAL grounds, just outcome grounds. And that speaks volumes.
Oh GMC, just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean that the rest of us are idiots ok?
I did offer you legal grounds, and you basically did a song and dance about why I was wrong.
I’ll even give you an example…
From Wiki:
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Now the Act didn’t specifically spell out that sexual harassment and the others were given, but they used other acts and arguments to justify it being covered under it. There is NO reason why they shouldn’t have included the Equal Pay Act to fall under this as well.
test, test
Sorry, was having problems posting earlier.
But you know, this is a good time to bring up exactly why the Equal Rights Amendment is still needed today.
Because of rulings like this one right here.
You are correct political_mom.
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an“unlawful employment practice” to discriminate “againstany individual with respect to his compensation . . . because of such individual’s . . . sex.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e– 2(a)(1). An individual wishing to challenge an employment practice under this provision must first file a chargewith the EEOC. §2000e–5(e)(1). Such a charge must be filed within a specified period (either 180 or 300 days,depending on the State) “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” ibid., and if the employee does not submit a timely EEOC charge, the employee may not challenge that practice in court, §2000e–5(f)(1).”
That’s the language of the statute, P-mom, drawn directly from Ledbetter. It is what it is.
And the plaintiff sought cert on a specific question, the question the Court was to answer (and no other):
““Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.” Pet. for Cert. i.”
So the Court answers a specific question, within a specific legal framework, and governed by a specific statute.
This suit was not brought under the Equal Pay Act, a different statute. Had her claim been brought under that statue, the outcome may have been different. Same for analogizing to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Unfortunately, she, and the Court, is bound by the statute she proceeds under.
Is it the ONLY way to read the statute? Perhaps not; certainly the dissent did not read the statute that way. But I do no accuse the minority of pandering to special interests as you do the majority. You did not argue the matter on legal grounds, you wrote, and I quote:
“It was an excuse to give the nod to businesses.
Please! The judges (and I use that term loosely) put their own ideas on this. It’s crap, fully utterly crap.”
Brilliant legal argument. It speaks not to rationale at all, instead attacking the percieved intentions of the majority. It’s a common tactic when attacking something you disagree with; attacking the motives of the other side, rather than their acts or decisions on substantive grounds. And especially with courts, it undercuts the legitimacy of law upon which we all rely.
Bottom line: Is pay discriimination based upon sex a discrete and independently actionable decision? Or is it a series of small, independent acts, each inactionable, but together creating an actionable “environment.”
While it’s not a slam dunk, I think the majority has a stronger argument. It’s consistent with precedent in similar cases (i.e. Evans, Ricks, Lorance, Morgan - read the case, and you’ll find the cites) and consistent with the Congressional language of the statute at issue.
Read it for yourself: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf
“And ya know, Capn, I don’t often get a surrender from you.
But I’ll take this one.”
Hehehehe, “surrender?”
Yup, more fantasy thinking from the Bush boot-licks.
Me, I’ll continue to live in the reality-based world . . .
At least have the editorial integrity to research the law and the subsequent majority decision rather than use the typically knee-jerk reaction about the “conservative majority”. If the law says 180 days then the majority ruling was correct and the minority was indeed guilty of “legislating from the bench”. If not, then the majority ruling was incorrect. If Brownlee is going to post blogs then he should be sure of the accuracy of his position rather than saying “If that hard deadline is really what the law requires…” IF?? He should take the time to research it and not automatically criticize the “conservative majority”.
There’s a world you apparantly live in, Capn. True enough.
But reality’s got little to do with it.
GMC, you’ve nailed it again. Title VII does not have any statutory exceptions to the 180 filing requirement. While I might disagree with the majority opinion, as a matter of statutory construction, it was correct.
The problem, folks, is with the statutory language.
I note from other sources that Ms Ledbetter had originally made a claim in her litigation under the Equal Pay Act that she abandoned during litigation. As GMC notes, this Act does not have the 180 day requirement contained therein. It does, however, contain certain limitations on damages, including a prohibition on punitive damages.
I suggest the Congress consider placing a “discovery” provision on the 180 requirement for filing a complaint with EEOC, namely the 180 day period does not begin to run until the alleged discriminatory act (as to pay) is discovered, or should have been discovered. As salary information is generally confidential, I think the discovery provision would be helpful to potential plaintiffs under Title VII.
Thanks, VT This kind of law really isn’t my bailiwick, so I wouldn’t be deeply surprised if I missed something. But the statute seems pretty clear.
There’s legitimate criticism here, but many posters, simply picked the wrong target. Congress passed the law, not the Court.
Thanks for posting the actual language of the statute, GMC.
Now we can see exactly why the SCOTUS ruling was so bogus.
Such a charge must be filed within a specified period (either 180 or 300 days,depending on the State) “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,”
The Supreme Court CON majority, which GMC argues has NO BIAS toward big business (doesn’t pass the straight-face test) has to determine what “180 days after the alleged PRACTICE occurred.”
In normal human speech, “practice” means intentional occurance, from the Greek “to do”:
(Webster’s New World Dictionary) 1. to do or perform frequently; make a habit of.
By any normal human reading of the statute, 180 days after the PRACTICE would mean 180 days after the most recent occurrance.
But that’s normal human speech which would hold the company liable–that’s not CON speech.
CON speech is when the words mean whatever you want them to mean.
(Bush: there’s a new sheriff in town . . . dedicated to fiscal responsibility — we can’t wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, to be a mushroom cloud over an American city — those people who say we didn’t find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are wrong, we found them, we found them)
See how it works?
So the CON justices ruled that the 180 day period starts when the company INTENDS to discriminate.
This is ridiculuous on its face because the company could INTEND to discriminate 181 days before it actually does, and then start discriminating, and based on this bonehead ruling, the prospective plaintiff would have no recourse because the time limit had already expired even before the discrimination occurred.
This SCOTUS is good at using time limits to help people it wants to help btw. That was one reason that they cited in Bush v Gore as to why the legal votes couldn’t be counted . . . not enough time.
You voted for Gore and it didn’t count?
Hey, screw you, hippy.
The simple fact is: People get the government they deserve. And the powers that be laugh as you tear each other up over which party holds the high road. I swear the matrix is for real.
I used to think that too, LJ.
But it’s not entirely true.
We do have a representative democracy, but there are a lot of structural impediments for effecting real change.
An unresponsive government is a self-perpetuating cycle. People feel that educating themselves and taking the time to vote is futile because their elected officials will just do what they want anyway.
Because of the winner-take-all system of the electoral college, a lot of people rationally opt not to vote for president knowing that their vote won’t make a difference.
They’re right. Usually it doesn’t. Try voting for a Democratic presidential candidate in Kansas for example. Exercise in futility.
There are a lot of systematic and structural impediments to insure that our government doesn’t have to answer to the will of the majority.
It’s apparant you didn’t read the case, Capn. Read it, and we’ll talk.
By appellant’s own cert petition, the very question the case was to answer, there WAS NO discriminatory act within the statutory period. Here - I’ll even post the language of the cert question - again - so you can read it slowly.
““Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, BUT IS THE RESULT OF INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATORY PAY DECISIONS THAT OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD.” Pet. for Cert. i.”
emphasis mine.
Read it carefully, Capn. I know you’ve got your worldview all set, and your villians all lined up so it’s easy, DU, DailyKos and all, but there it is. You’re simply pouring all your self-rightous outrage at the wrong target.
But we can’t let facts interfere with tarring our appointed villians, can we? That’s not the party line.
CapnAmerica-You are right, there are many impediments, including gerrymandering which is probably one of the worst, and dome by both parties to protect incumbents. the electoral college I am still not in agreement with myself.Still, one must work for change. As in working for the long haul. As in planting an oak tree.In todays microwave society it’s about the next 5 minutes, in the business world, the next quarter. Immediate gratification or not worth the effort. According to this site:
http://spa.american.edu/ccps/files/File/csae/csae061109.pdf
Only 40% voted in the last election. Guaranteee the rest will bitch and complain though. That’s their right as citizens, but sure as hell doesn;t change things.Start with precint captains, local party reps if you are tied into the party. Local state reps, then federal lawmakers. The bottom line is this particular legislation was passed by Congress. Make them do their damn job! Drop the “Democrats good, Republicans bad” or “Republicans good, Democrats bad” crap and talk about individual candidates. I am a registered Republican, but I voted for both Morrison and Sebelius. “Morrison good, Kline bad.”The people need to take back the government. They needto turn off American Idol and Monday Night Football and get to work. They need to think more and feel less.Unfortunatley, people on blogs are already politically active, so I am probably preaching to the choir. It is the 60%’ers that need to learn,
Good ideas, LJ.
I’m doing all those things.
Are you?
*****
GMC knows better than the four dissenting Supreme Court justices. I’m so impressed.
From AP/Time:
The decision broke along ideological lines.
Ginsburg said in court Tuesday for the dissenters, “In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.” She noted that Ledbetter’s pay started out comparable to what men were earning but slipped over time.
Ginsburg said Ledbetter faced an impossible choice: sue early and probably lose a half-baked case, or wait until the evidence is strong enough to win and be told she sued too late. Siding with Ginsburg were justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
*****
But you’re right, thanks to a Supreme Court majority that makes words mean whatever they want them to mean–even to the point that it interpretes a law so that CAN’T be enforced–Congress will now have to re-write Title VII to make it CON proof.
And Ms. Ledbetter?
Screw her. Apparently there’re no law to protect workers from getting screwed under CON rule . . .
Good ideas, LJ.
I’m doing all those things.
Are you?
*****
GMC knows better than the four dissenting Supreme Court justices. I’m so impressed.
From AP/Time:
The decision broke along ideological lines.
Ginsburg said in court Tuesday for the dissenters, “In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.” She noted that Ledbetter’s pay started out comparable to what men were earning but slipped over time.
Ginsburg said Ledbetter faced an impossible choice: sue early and probably lose a half-baked case, or wait until the evidence is strong enough to win and be told she sued too late. Siding with Ginsburg were justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626166,00.html
*****
But you’re right, thanks to a Supreme Court majority that makes words mean whatever they want them to mean–even to the point that it interpretes a law so that the law CAN’T be enforced–Congress will now have to re-write Title VII to make it CON proof.
And Ms. Ledbetter?
Screw her.
Apparently there’re no laws in this country to protect workers from getting screwed under CON rule . . .
Thanks for the campaign issue, suckas.
The decision broke along ideological lines? The supremes?
Say it isnt so….
Good ideas, LJ.
I’m doing all those things.
Are you?
*****
yes I am to varying degrees.
This is an unfortunate ruling. According to Chief Justice Roberts, it threatens SCOTUS’s legitimacy.
You see, he granted an interview to an Atlantic writer shortly after his confirmation, in which he explained that closely-split votes, particularly with strongly argued l justices’ dissents, threatened the legitimacy of the court, and his foremost goal was going to be to craft consensus, and super-majority and unanimous decisions.
He understood that split-decisions, with cogent dissents gave an appearance that close-maority decisions were not firmly authoritative, but very tenuous. He did not state that such decisions were perceivable as political, rather than impartial, but it’s not hard to read between the lines, to know that this was precisely what he was implying. 9-0, 8-1 are authorative firmly-law-based decisions. 5-4 is a political decision, not firmly rooted in law. Otherwise, you’d have to say that the 4 dissenters don’t know their law, and that means SCOTUS has 4 ignoramuses, which delegitimizes the court. Roberts stated, if you can read between the lines, that 5-4 decisions either mean the law is unclear, and personal emotions decide the outcome, or else 4 justices are out to lunch.
He was going to try to avoid this. But in Ledbetter v. Goodyear SCOTUS issued a ruling that according to Justice Roberts’ statements made to the Atlantic threatened the legitimacy of SCOTUS.
It does not help legitimize SCOTUS that in Ledbetter, Mr. Roberts is the son of a US Steel executive. He’s demonstrated prejudice (Big old-industry corp versus a little worker), until proven otherwise. He hasn’t disproved a finding of prejudice. Which is impeachable. (Article III doesn’t require the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors for federal judges and justices to be impeached. See Samuel Chase, wiki.)
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read a lot of statutes, case rulings, law school reviews and textbooks. They’re not inscrutible, they just take time to read and digest. If Wichita had an ABA-approved law school, I think I probably have a J.D. today. But Wichita doesn’t and I don’t. (I wasn’t willing to enroll in the non-approved “Presidents College” law school here that destroyed the hopes and ambitions of its students. I was born at night, but not last night.)
GMC70 talks about process. SCOTUS has the power to consider the entire scope of statutes, and the Constitution. Each justice has a team of top-law-school clerks who extensively review and present their statutory, case-law and law-review article findings for their boss to peruse and consider.
In the early days of the Republic, justices were personally expert in the then-limited statutes of the new Congress, and the common-law texts of English jurist-scholars Edward Coke and William Blackstone. Today justices rely on the law-digging talents of young people. The researching and summarizing of vast amounts of law by young clerks and presenting it to their boss justices is part of process.
The justices review their clerks’ findings and arguments and consider these with or against what they already know. The best justices weigh this information and form tentative ideas, but not hard conclusions. Then they all meet in conference to present their ideas. They discuss and debate. Then they vote for petitioner or respondent. Then the Chief Justice assigns somebody to write the majority opinion (which may be himself). Individual justices can write concurring (but based on different legal theories ) opinions , or choose to simply endorse the majority opinion. A single dissenting opinion can be written by a single justice, which other dissenting justices endorsing, or they can each write their own reasons for dissent in separate opinions.
SCOTUS has the power to weigh various statutes and constitutional principles, including prior rulings. It is supposed to take a non-regional, national-interest view, compared to regional Circuit Courts of Appeals. Not that the Courts of Appeals are not supposed to do this, but if the Fifth Circuit is composed judges born and raised in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, their interpretations of federal law may be very different from counterparts in the Second Circuit from New York, Connecticut and Vermont. Why? Because the COA judges are vetted through their states’ senators.
Essentially, without legislating from the bench, SCOTUS can justifiably issue rulings based on what it finds to be controlling statutes, or the Constitution. In Ledbetter, it had every power to find that the Equal Pay statute was controlling, and then issue fair back pay without punitive damages.
SCOTUS also had the power to apply reams of statutory and common-law findings that the statute of limitations for civil cases starts to run at the point of discovery of torts by a plaintiff. If some wrongdoing is being concealed, and a person doesn’t discover it for many years, that doesn’t dissolve the long-standing wrongdoing.
Furthermore, a jury of Ms. Ledbetter’s peers found for her. That’s a bedrock principle of American justice. Nullifying jury verdicts, without reasonable cause, that is to say, where the trial-by-jury PROCESS was fully adhered to under the supervision of a competent federal judge, according to statute and the Constitution, is not permissible. That’s an impeachible plutocratic capitalist vs. common people working-class offense. It’s an indisputable violation of due process.
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that requires trial by jury for civil cases. But once that has been established by common-law precedent in federal courts for 200 years, you can’t overturn that, except by federal statute. To do so represents the elite’s attempt to push America downstream from the high mountains of governant of, by and for the people, to the stagnant swamps of government of, by and for the few rich and powerful, i.e. aristocratic plutocracy, and tyranny.
To take GMC70’s argument of process one further step, if Sandra Day O’Conner were on the Court, the verdict probably would have been 5-4 in favor of Petitioner Ledbetter. What a difference a year makes. That’s why this week’s SCOTUS decision was illegitimate, as Chief Justice Roberts understands, according to his own stated objective to issue rulings without strong dissent.
The Ledbetter v. Goodyear ruling is against the tide of history, in which women are on a march to achieve equality in the workplace with men, if women do an equal weight-bearing job. If they do this, they deserve equal pay. If a specific woman–or man– does an inferior job, in an equal-title position, she or he should be paid less than others. But Goodyear never argued that Ms. Ledbetter did less of a good job than males at the same level.
And SCOTUS should have acknowledged this, not by legislating from the bench, but by juridicially weighing Congress’s statutes.
Woah! Damn straight, MPS!
Thanks for bayonetting the guts out of GMC’s argument that the SCOTUS “was only following the statute . . . ”
Your analysis of the overturning of a jury decision is very strong as well.
And pointing out that justices can be impeached for even less cause than the President (illicit but not illegal affair) is worth remembering.
It’s something the Democrats should work toward ASAP–Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas could be impeached over Bush v Gore alone.
Nice opinion MPS. Unfortunately, since you are admittedly not a lawyer, it is only an opinion. And since it has often been stated here that only those peer reviewed experts opinions are worthy anything, yours are not worth any more than mine, and I have an opposite opinion. As far as the 5/4 split, I think it does raise some questions. Shall we pass review on ALL those decisions that were 5/4 and call them illegitimate or “political”.
Never in the history of the US has a Supreme Court Justice been impeached.
For those widely unpopular Supreme Court decisions, there’s a shot at rewriting or writing a law to overturn the decision, but SCOTUS may still trump the rewritten or new law.
What if we had an Amendment to the Constitution to shift more power back to the POTUS and Congress, something along these lines:
Balance of Powers Amendment – 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Any rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court made after the enactment date of this Amendment, may be overruled by a vote of two-thirds or more of the U.S. House of Representatives and two-thirds or more of the U.S. Senate, and approved by the President of the U.S. Should the President veto a recommendation passed by two-thirds or more of both Houses of Congress, this veto cannot be overridden.This Amendment supplements Article III, Section 1, by granting the ability of Congress to supersede the power of the Supreme Court in the manner specified by this Amendment.
Capn:
You still can’t read. As I already posted -
“Bottom line: Is pay discrimination based upon sex a discrete and independently actionable decision? Or is it a series of small, independent acts, each alone inactionable, but together creating an actionable “environment?”
While it’s not a slam dunk, I think the majority has a stronger argument. It’s consistent with precedent in similar cases (i.e. Evans, Ricks, Lorance, Morgan - read the case, and you’ll find the cites) and consistent with the Congressional language of the statute at issue.”
(with a couple of grammar edits . . .)
BTW, as I read it again, the better phrasing is “is each pay check, itself not the result of a discriminatory act but a result of past discriminatory acts, itself an actionable discriminatory act?”
Case broke on ideological lines? Yes, but I think not largely along the lines you decry. It broke upon the lines of: do we follow the language of the statute at issue, and limit ourselves to deciding the narrow question presented, or do we unchain ourselves from the statute and do what we think is “justice?” The majority, I think correctly, chose the narrow view.
That’s complex, of course, and requires thinking. It also requires judges who are sensitive to their appropriate role to decide narrow legal questions, not broad policy questions.
It’s obviously above the heads of the DU/DailyKos parrots, however.
Max-Not sure I disagree, but good luck getting 2/3 of the house or senate to agree on anything!
hah!
MPS -
To be blunt, you don’t understand the difference between appellate analysis an jury trial. They decide two different things.
And if you’d read the decision, you’d understand that the Equal Pay Act is a separate statute, and is NOT the statute under which the suit was brought. Read appellant’s petition for cert again.
5-4 splits mean only one thing: that the case is close. Why are we surprised that SCOTUS rulings are often split, and closely so? If these were easy, clearly apparent cases, they wouldn’t need to be decided by the SCOTUS, now would they?
And I’d point out that this decision can be “overridden” with a simple statutory change, no super-majorities at all. Be my guest.
To those of you who seek to undermine the legitimacy of the Court - be careful what you wish for. The rule of law is a more carefully constructed framework that you often realize. Undermining that rule may have consequences far beyond what you realize.
I’d also add that the statutory change may be retroactive, should Congress wish to make it so. The ex post facto law prohibition only applies to criminal law.
Max, as to overriding the SCOTUS with a 2/3 vote - keep in mind that except in constitutional decisions (and this is not one), merely a statutory change can change a decision. And that’s fine. But as to constitutional decisions, remember that the Constitution is intended to be anti-majoritarian. Popular positions, popular ideas need no protections. It is the role of the court to enforce the limits on government and popular majorities, especially when a particular idea or group is unpopular. There have been a number of times when majorities have been quite willing to throw out much of the 1st amendment. Many 4th amendment rulings have been, and continue to be, quite unpopular.
You sure you really want to subject yourself to the whims of the masses, with no guiding principles to be bound to?
Understand your concerns GMC, but based on some outrageous rulings by the SCOTUS (and lower level courts)in recent years and in personal experience, I see a judicial system that has somehow gained almost unlimited power - and even chooses to disregard the Constitution at times.
Most will agree the balance of power in the Federal government has become much too heavily weighted in the Courts overall, and especially in the Supreme Court.
For example, the case allowing the government to take over private family property for someone else’s private use (as opposed to the taking of private property for public use, as is proscribed by the Constitution) highlight the need for a way to check the seemingly unlimited power of the Supreme Court to “legislate from the bench.”
Nowhere in the Constitution can it be found where such powers are granted to allow the Supreme Court to take this approach - allowing for private land to be taken for private use.
The activist Judges have given this power to themselves, and this power should only be given by the People. And so now, we need to take some power back.
All across America, you see homes and farms being taken to build more expensive homes, condos, and shopping malls. The government argues that more property tax revenue is a good thing, and that the government can decide what is the highest and best use of the land.
If the SCOTUS wants to ignore other provisions of the Constitution (such as the 1st, 2nd, or any other)they are almost free to do so. Hours could be spent discussing violations of Equal Protection under the Law, though those words are inscribed at the front of the US Supreme Court building.
Only when the will of the majority of the People is strong enough to push a large majority of the Peoples’ representatives in both houses of Congress AND their President, to agree to take action, would a Supreme Court decision be overruled using my proposed Amendment. Thus, Congress should not be allowed to override a President’s veto, for if the People’s will is not strong enough to force the President’s hand, then the People have not granted sufficient power to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
It should be a somewhat infrequent event when Congress and the President overrule the Supreme Court, yet this Amendment serves to instill another check needed to better balance the powers of government, which will lead to fewer radical and unchecked rulings by the Supreme Court.
GMC,
Save the cheap shots, I’m immune.
Disagreeing with the basis of the the one-vote majority decision (what “practice” means and its relationship to the 180 day deadline) does not mean that one can’t think–see Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s opinion that the majority view is “parsimonious.”
GMC writes, “And if you’d read the decision, you’d understand that the Equal Pay Act is a separate statute, and is NOT the statute under which the suit was brought.”
Wrong again, GMC.
Ledbetter originally filed suit under the Equal Pay Act, but that too was thrown out on some legal technicality, pointing out how important it is for the SCOTUS to protect the weak from the powerful special interests.
GMC writes, “5-4 splits mean only one thing: that the case is close.”
Funny thing, Chief Justice Roberts said soon after taking the oath that he wanted the exact opposite, more consensus.
This only makes logical sense–5 to 4 decisions make the highest court in the land look arbitrary and undermine its authority. Either the 4 dissenting justices don’t know the law or they are political, take your pick.
Here’s a good overview from the minority view:
BAD THINK
The Supreme Court mixes up intending to screw over your employee and actually doing it.
By Richard Thompson FordPosted Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at 5:39 PM ET
Pop quiz: Suppose you’ve just discovered your boss has been embezzling from you for years. Since the 1990s, he’s stolen 30 percent of the return on your retirement investments each year. When did your boss actually swindle you? How long do you have to sue? A) He swindled you when he first came up with the scheme—if you didn’t figure it out and sue him then, you’re too late and he can keep your money. B) He swindled you when he shorted you for the first time—if you didn’t find out and sue him then, you’re too late. C) He swindled you from the first year right up until the end, when you found out about it and took the bastard to court. D) Stop bellyaching; you’re lucky to have a job.
If you answered C, you have a promising career in law—writing frustrated and angry dissents along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If you answered A, B, or D, welcome to the majority of the United States Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court that an employer who shortchanged a female employee for years, up until she retired, discriminated on the basis of sex only the first time this happened. Because she didn’t sue right away—she probably didn’t know she was being shortchanged until later—the court barred her claim as untimely, even though her employer continued to pay her less than men doing the same work until she left.
It’s a bad decision. And at first, the Ledbetter opinion reads like ideological warfare: the right wing of the court struggling against precedent to gut a civil-law statute. But that may be unfair. In fact, the court’s argument follows from a widespread—though misguided—obsession with state of mind that many conservatives and liberals share.
Ledbetter basically grandfathers in longtime pay discrimination. If an employer pays a woman less because of her sex, and isn’t found out within the 180- or 300-day period, the employer can continue to pay the discriminatory wage. For employers, the lesson is obvious—hide your misdeed for six months and you’re not only off the hook, you get to keep cheating. For employees, the lesson is equally clear: Sue early and often. If you suspect your boss might be discriminating with regard to your pay, you can’t afford to wait around until you’re sure.
http://www.slate.com/id/2167286?nav=tap3
Surely, that was not the intent of the law. And the SCOTUS doesn’t have to interpret the language the way they did so that it becomes the intent of the law.
That’s where we disagree: you say they do, I say they don’t.
I don’t think you are stupid for believing what you believe, I just think you’re wrong.
Richard Thompson Ford summarized exactly what I was arguing when he writes:
“Conceptually, Ledbetter relies on a confused conception of discrimination. Alito’s opinion assumes that the legal injury to Ledbetter was Goodyear’s intent to pay her less because of her sex, rather than the ongoing act of actually paying her less. But that’s not right. Discriminatory intent isn’t itself the legal wrong—it’s evidence of a discriminatory act.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2167286/pagenum/2/
Agree or disagree, fine.
But that position doesn’t show ignorance or stupidity of the case.
Nor does one need a law degree to understand the essentials.
Hmmm…Intent of the Company vs the Action of the Company.
That’s almost as difficult to distinguish as the intent of the lawmakers vs the law they actually wrote!
Now I know why there are so many lawyers! (No offense GMC!)
Capn:
First - now we’re getting somewhere. I understand your position, and certainly it’s a close case; that’s why it’s 5-4. I simply don’t ascribe decisions I disagee with to malice; you immediately assume same. In that sense, that’s not thinking, that’s reacting. I understand why DU/DailyKos, and R.T.Ford do so - they’re in the business to sell papers, or drive net traffic. It pays to be outrageous and a smartass. I never ascribed to you the inability to think. You simply did not demonstrate it; instead, you took cheap shots.
But neither I nor you are gaining anything here other than an intellectual passtime. I have no papers to sell; smartass serves no purpose. Frankly, too often, you wallow in it. But that’s behind us here.
Second - I think the R.T.Ford analogy is conceptually wrong, and inconsistent with the facts of this case as presented to the Court. That an Equal Pay Act claim was dismissed earlier and then abandoned by plaintiff is irrelevent; that’s not the case the Court decided.And Ford’s analogy assumes a separate ACT - the skimming of the 30% - on each pay period, each act a separate intentional act (and actionable). But that’s not the facts here. Read the question presented in the petition again. It PRESUMES the discriminatory pay decision - the ACT, occurred outside the claim period. Only the effects of that decision continued. That’s quite different than the facts Ford attempts to analogize to.
As to “intent,” well, intent is written in language. It is not for courts to cast around for an intent they like when the language is (at least arguably) clear. And it can be argued - Alito does argue - that the intent of the law is indeed to sue early, and resolve claims quickly. Statutes of limitation or repose have a long history and valid purpose. Here, that purpose is to expose the wrong and correct it early and immediately, not wait until some ambulance chaser thinks he can get a big payday.If I remember correctly, the court did not speak to a discovery doctrine - the doctrine that the statute of limitations period only runs from when a claimant knew or should have known of the injury. I may well be wrong, but I don’t think the decision barred applying such a doctrine. VT - help me out here?
Remember, too, this is easily fixable: change the law. It can even be retroactive, to benefit Ms. Ledbetter.
Isn’t this a lot more fun than spewing cheap shots, insults, and meaningless labels? And at the end of the day, we can agree to diagree, share a beer, and both go home as friends. That’s not possible when you ascribe to your opponents intentional malice, or worse. Reasonable people can disagree, and be reasonable people. And the world will not come to an end if my, or your, candidate of choice is not elected. In the grand scheme, it’s just not that important. The Republic lurches on.
And Max: While I understand your concern (and yes, from a individual liberties perspective, Kelo was a horrible decision, and not what one would expect from this Court), on balance the legislature, governed by fickle majorities, is I think a greater threat to liberties than the judiciary. It is the Court which put teeth in the 14th amendment, in the face of democratic majorities which would have kept Jim Crow firmly in place. It is the Court which stood in the way of a flag-burning ban which struck a direct blow at the 1st amendment. It is the court which continues to protect the right to freedom from arbitrary search in the face of majorities which are tired of criminals getting off on “technicalities.” Our system of checks and balances has served us well, on balance; when it lurches out of kilter, it also lurches back. Though it’s not always pretty, or efficient (it wasn’t intended to be), why would we change it now?
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.
We’ve about beat this one to death. And I think I’ve even learned some civil law; hopefully, some readers have learned too. Gee, VT, pretty soon I may be practicing in your bailiwick!! don’t worry, I’m not much of a threat there. I like what I’m doing here.
:Beer glasses clink: Cheers!
The one thing I have to part company with you however is this statement:
“And the world will not come to an end if my, or your, candidate of choice is not elected. In the grand scheme, it’s just not that important.”
We wouldn’t be bogged down in Iraq now if Bush hadn’t been Selected instead of elected.
2 Billion dollars a week wouldn’t be wasted. 20,000 soldiers wouldn’t be maimed for life. Almost 4,000 wouldn’t be dead.
For those 4,000, the world DID come to an end.
It matters a great deal which side one is on . . .
“It matters a great deal which side one is on . . . ”
Not really. You assume what might or might not have happened had Gore been elected. Of course, there’s no way to know that. In the short term, some policies would be different, but most only marginally so. In the long term, very little would be different. The two parties are only the faces on a vast permanent government that changes only incrementally, and exists mostly to continue to feed itself and justify its own existance.
In any case, cheers. Have a good evening.
GMC, I can see your side on not checking the balance of power of the Supreme Court through a 28th Amendment. Who do we fear the most - Congress or the Courts? That’s a toss-up for me, though at least we can vote Congress out every 2 or 6 years.
There must be some way though to limit the power of the courts, and not just the Supreme Court.
On the Kelo decision, is it as simple as having Congress pass a law to ban the practice of taking private land for private use? In effect, this would simply restate (perhaps a little more clearly) what the Constitution already says.
Any ideas on checking the power of the courts?
Term limits? Something else?
Max -
I frankly think there are enough checks in place. Kelo is an abomination, but it is one that had been building for years. When we have a commerce clause run amok, I don’t think we should be too surprised that eminent domain would run amok too.
Congress can fix it, of course. Most states are already moving to do so. But Congressional fixes are statutory only, and can change as membership in the Congress changes.
Congress can limit the power of the courts now. Among other things, Congress can limit the Court’s jurisdiction, change statutes they interpret in ways Congress didn’t intent (as they could Title VII), etc. They may even refuse to fund the judiciary, or SCOTUS itself (though I can’t imagine that), and as noted, judges may be impeached. Their biggest power is of course appointment and confirmation. But we don’t want a Court subject to the same kind of majority whims as the elected branches. The constitution was intended to be permanent; a solid fixture, unchangable by ordinary means. We kind of abandoned that from the 30s through the 70s, and now we have to repair the damage. Be patient, the pendulum always swings back.
GMC70 I understand the differences between trial courts, courts of appeal, and supreme courts. In the first, juries are given an explanation of applicable laws, and are instructed to find facts that are materially relevant within these specified laws. Courts of Appeal’s job is to find errors made by trial judge, such as instructions that are not compatible with the applicable statutes, procedural errors that are substantive with respect to potentially changing a trial’s outcome, and juries’ disregard of the law as explained to them. Basically, COAs may sustain or overturn a jury’s verdict, on these grounds.
The SCOTUS, and in some cases state supreme courts have power to consider facts presented at trial, and find that juries’ (or judges in bench cases) issued verdicts that were clearly inconsonant with the facts , which is a power akin to retrying the case, in abbreviated form.
We must also consider that contending parties’ oral arguments, are limited to, IIRC, 30 minutes. In the early days of our Republic, arguments typically lasted several hours, sometimes extending over more than a single day. That was a much more deliberative process, something much more in accord with our Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment-inspired principles, than what we have today.
GMC, you have admitted that Ledbetter was a “close call”. That’s precisely what the Chief Justice holds to be a de-legitimization of the High Court. Five-four in favor of Ledbetter in 2005 with Mrs. Day-O’Connor on the bench in , versus 5-4 in favor of Goodyear in her absence in 2007, with the son of Rustbelt steel company, supporting a Rustbelt tire company, is not authoritative is it? It’s not me saying so, it is Chief Justice Roberts saying so, in his Atlantic interview. Mr. Roberts himself says that close-split decisions with individual justices’ dissents mean that such decisions de-legitimize SCOTUS.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/john-roberts
(If you can’t access this as a non-subscriber, go to the library: it’s in the Jan/Feb 2007 issue.)
The Democrat majority Congress is reportedly already working on a statutory amendment to Title VII to bring it in line with the “reasonable-person discovery” doctrine. If such is passed, with retroactive provisions, it will be really interesting to see if GWB signs it, or vetoes it. Karl Rove may very well advise the Preznit that vetoing it could torpedo soccer-mom votes for Republican candidates in 2008. Or if 2008 House and Senate Republican candidates are smart, in many districts and states, they’ll vote for it to protect their own interests, and create a veto-proof supermajority on initial voting.
And, if I may be frank, this will send a message to SCOTUS’s newest appointees to wake up to modern reality: you can’t have a country that depends upon women-workers but issue anti-women-workers-rights rulings.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer. But here is what an employment law expert said about the case:
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003741.php
“Paul Secunda, an employment law expert and professor at University of Mississippi, believes the Supreme Court will affirm the 11th Circuit judgment.
Secunda said he thinks the Court will require a plaintiff like Ledbetter to state a claim within the time period because “the unlawful employment practice can be said to occur on particular days as opposed to over a series of days or years.”
Such an outcome would provide a clear, bright-line rule and help foster judicial efficiency in hearing and disposing of Title VII cases, Secunda explained.
On the other hand, said Secunda, “Such a decision would probably also hamper other interests served by Title VII, such as the eradication of discrimination from society and providing a remedy for those who have actually suffered discrimination.”
On May 29, 2007, a divided Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit’s decision, finding that the limitations period for a disparate pay claim cannot be extended or disregarded.
“Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
“Ledbetter should have filed an E.E.O.C. charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her. She did not do so, and the paychecks that were issued to her during the 180 days prior to the filing of her E.E.O.C. charge do not provide a basis for overcoming that prior failure.”
While acknowledging that the 180-day deadline is “short by any measure,” Alito reasoned: “This short deadline reflects Congress’s strong preference for the prompt resolution of employment discrimination allegations through voluntary conciliation and cooperation.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined Alito in the majority.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, noted: “the ball is in Congress’s court,” and urged lawmakers “to correct this parsimonious reading of Title VII.”
Ginsburg, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter, expressed her displeasure with the majority’s holding by taking the unusual step of reading the dissenting opinion from the bench.
The majority’s decision “is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure,” Ginsburg asserted, adding: “In our view, this court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”
Professor Secunda of the University of Mississippi criticized the majority opinion and seconded the dissent’s call for legislative clarification.
“This decision is inconsistent with the purposes of the Title VII to both make victims of discrimination whole and to eradicate employment discriminatory practices from society at large,” Secunda noted, adding: “It leads to an absurd situation where employees either must bring pay claims prematurely when there is not enough evidence that there has been unlawful pay discrimination or wait to a later time when there exists more substantial evidence of pay discrimination and be barred from bringing such claims by the statute of limitations.”______________________So in the opinion of a legal expert in the field of employment law, SCOTUS’s decision leads to “an absurd situation”. Secunda’s last statement is what novelist Joseph Heller called a “Catch-22″.
Next, consider National Railroad Corp. [Amtrack] v. Morgan, in which a black railroad worker was the subject of racist comments. He too was barred, technically, by the same 180/300 day statute of limitations for separate old events. The 9th Circuit held for plaintiff.
Amtrack filed for cert, and in this case, SCOTUS carved an exception to statute, under a theory that the plaintiff was subjected to an ongoing hostile work environment. The court here did not read the statute strictly and suggest that if plaintiff wanted remedy only Congress could provide it.
Who wrote the opinion for the majority? A black justice named Clarence Thomas.
GMC–
You’re kidding, right?
We’d be fighting (and dying) in Iraq right now if Gore were president?
Because Clinton - Gore had some influence in government for eight years and we DIDN’T invade and occupy Iraq.
I agree that the two parties are more alike than they claim to be–there is some justification in calling them the two wings of the “war party”–but the idea that we would be massively in debt (Bush’s tax cuts plus 9 percent per annum gov’t spending increases), bogged down in Iraq for four years going on forever, and fighting things like social security privatization under anyone but Bush is hard to imagine.
Bush is the Worst President Ever, and he’s hurt our country much more than a run-of-the-mill bad president like Hoover or Nixon.
For GMC,
Here are a couple interesting reads, Justice Alito’s majority opinion, and Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Ledbetter.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZD.html
Ginsburg makes a far more compelling case for petitioner Ledbetter than Alito makes for respondent Goodyear. She demolishes Alito’s reliance on SCOTUS precedent in Lorance v. AT&T Technologies by pointing out that this decision was sufficiently misguided, in interpreting Congress’s intent in the Civil Rights Act, to result in moving Congress to amend the Act to nullify SCOTUS’s ruling. In essence, citing overturned law as precedent doesn’t exactly help the court’s credibility.
Very importantly, Ginsburg makes a compelling argument, to any non-biased person, that provisions of the CSA which have 180 or 300-day statutes of limitations, clearly refer to discrete easily identifiable point of occurrence acts of discrimination, such as a woman’s or minority member’s being denied a job applied for, or a promotion, or being terminated, where the cause can be demonstrated to be anti-woman or anti-minority sentiment by the offending party.
Ginsburg convincingly argues that Ledbetter is unlike the cases involving these acts, but is closely akin to the situation in National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U. S. 101, 114 in which a long train of abuses constituted an ongoing discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter was hired at the same pay as males. Fair, nondiscriminatory practice by Goodyear. But the males subsequently got bigger annual pay increases than she did, resulting in a cumulative loss to her of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This wasn’t a case of individual torts, it was a case of a persistent tort, i.e. Goodyear’s intent and act of employing Ms. Ledbetter to do a job males did, while paying her less.
GMC, here’s how it works: “Most women have a husband as primary provider, so their income is secondary. We have to pay males more, because they are the primary breadwinners.” This is how it is in Alabama, and Kansas, isn’t it?
Ginsburg cites a vast majority of Courts of Appeals rulings that separate easy-to-discern single instances of discrimination vs. a chronic underlying discrminatory intent.
Historically, SCOTUS has usually deferred to large-majority COAs rulings. Why? Because, to trash the vast majority of COAs is to discredit and disrupt our system of federal jurisprudence, by substantively calling COAs’ judges ignoramuses in law knowledge.
John Roberts said in his Atlantic interview that he was a pragmatist. In not only trashing COAs rulings, but also impeding women’s rights, he proved himself to either be a Machiavellian liar, or else being a dumbie in blind-sightedly working against his own stated objective.
This is emblematic of the entire Bush administration: It says it wants to achieve “x”. Does the opposite of what achieving “x” requires. Is it numb-skullery or skull-duggery? Pick your poison.
Ms. Ledbetter’s loss may prove inconsequential in the bigger picture of things. Goodyear moved some of its production from Ohio to Alabama because labor was cheaper there. Next move: close down Ohio plants entirely and set up plants in China. Next move after that, close down the Alabama plant, and expand production in China.
MPS-
I appreciate your input, up until the point where you wrote that the argument was clear to “any non-biased person.” Apparantly, “any non-biased person” means “anyone who agrees with MPS.”
Those rose-colored glasses are real comfortable, huh?
I understand you agree with the minority. The majority simply disagrees with you. That does not mean they are non-biased, just reach a different conclusion.
I simply think the majority has a better argument. I’ve stated why, a couple of times now, and see no reason to rehash it. Please don’t insult my - or your - intelligence by claiming that only you have no biases, and anyone who disagrees with you obviously does.
And with due respect to the Chief Justice, I think he’s wrong. I understand he wants to preside over a less contentous court, which reaches broad agreement. But decisions which split the court don’t delegitimize that court. They simply reflect the fact that cases that go the SCOTUS are often close calls; we shouldn’t be surprised that decisions are at times closely decided.
The real issue here between the majority and minority is just what was being decided, I think. The majority focused on a narrow legal issue, decided by the controlling statutory language and the question presented in the petition for cert. The dissent wanted to look broader than that.
I frankly believe that the narrow approach is the proper one. That is the role of appellate courts, not to retry cases, but to decide specific questions of law. Questions of fact are NOT subject to review by appellate courts, contrary to common misunderstanding; simply the application of law. The most an appellate court may do is decide if the facts, as found by the trial court, support the legal conclusion. Appellate courts decide cases as narrowly as possible to decide the questions presented, or they should.
We can agree to disagree. But neither of us is absent bias. Please don’t fool yourself otherwise, because you’re not fooling me.
Should read “That does not mean they are BIASED, just reach a different conclusion.”
3rd paragraph.
It’s been a long day.
GMC,
“Any non-biased person” doesn’t refer to me, it refers to thousands of judges who have made decisions according to the ancient English principle of equity in common law, as well as modern anti-gender-discrimination and anti-race-discrimination principles embodied in the Civil Rights Act, and the tolling of statutes of limitations according to the point in time at which a “reasonable man” could be expected to discover a tort.
As I said earlier, Justice Thomas’ decision that CRA’s statute of limitations did not appy to a black MAN’s CRA claim, completely in contrast to Thomas’s anti-Ledbetter vote shows his blatant sexism bias. He read CRA’s application to a minority male to be different from its application to a female.
GMC, Thomas’s first judgment is not reconcilable with the CRA statute’s SOL, is it? The fundamental statutory intent is to protect minorities of either sex, and white females equally. Thomas doesn’t accept this.
Have you ever been cheated/defrauded, i.e. someone made a representation to you, and you relied on it, but it was a deliberately falsified representation? Goodyear made representations to employees, and to the federal government, that pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, which legally regulated the corporation’s conduct as an employer, that the company was in compliance with CRA. Yet, in fact, it was intentionally not complying. That’s a tort, remediable under centuries-old Anglo-American equity doctrine.
As a nation, we made a decision to issue rights and privileges to women and minorities that had not previously existed in the workplace, starting in 1964, and expanded in 1991. Goodyear had the right to gather with other Fortune 500 corporations and smaller Chamber of Commerce member businesses to use their combined resources, to lobby congressmen to block passage of CRA, but this didn’t happen, or whatever measures were taken to prevent passage by businesses were futile. American society evolved to a point at which it was willing to prohibit “traditional” arbitrary workplace discrimination against women and people of color.
Corporations are issued charters. No corporation has a right to exist. It has a privilege. It exists at the pleasure of the people. Corporations are granted significant privileges and immunities as “fictional persons”. Their managers, directors and shareholders, who are real persons, are granted immunities as well.
This represents a social contract. Where would Goodyear be without the sacrifice of 12 million mostly working-class soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in WWII? It wouldn’t exist.
You have biases. I have biases. Can we agree on this? So do Supreme Court justices. Consider John Roberts. He attended Harvard. He did extremely well as an undergraduate (summa cum laude in 3 years) and very well as a law student (magna cum laude).
Roberts was a National Merit Scholar in high school. Exceptionally bright.
This being said, at Harvard, he was not a financial aid recipient, as his father was able to afford to pay all expenses.
John worked, and helped to cover some of his own Harvard expenses, but that was only summer work for Bethlehem Steel, which at $3 /hr for 400 hrs covered about 1/3 of his Harvard expenses. Financial aid recipients of his era working summers typically earned $1.65/hr, minimum wage, or if they were lucky, without having “Daddy-gave-me-this-job”, $2/hr.
So, in course performance at Harvard, John Roberts had a substantial advantage, in study time, over financial-aid-receiving students who had to work jobs 10-20 hours per week during the school year to cover part of their attendance expenses. Affluence begets advantages. (My kids went to the Ivy League without financial aid, so I’m familiar with their advantages over their cohorts who had to do jobs when my kids were studying. )
Very importantly, John Roberts grew up in the 50s and 60s. His father was a Bethlehem Steel executive. At that time, auto, steel, rubber and other heavy industries’ execs were extremely vexed by unions’ making their workers partners with corporation management. Strike-based pay and benefits increases were deemed by industrial executives to be exceedingly problematic, as they counteracted the executives’ missions, given by their bosses (higher level execs and boards of directors) to achieve desired profit margins.
John Roberts’ father was also member of the Republican country-club set. He grew up in a home environment of class bias.
Roberts’ Ledbetter vote may have been based on a consideration that should Goodyear, and other heavy industries, be subjected to prolonged-discrimination suits, this would jeopardize their ability to operate plants here, and this would harm not-privileged-like-him working-class American employees.
Or it could alternatively be based on deep class-discrimination bias in favor of capitalists against lower-level workers. His own father was a beneficiary of capitalism, who also was in the difficult squeeze of satisfying his masters’ profit-maximizing goal, against workers’ demands for better compensation that defeated his masters’ goal.
Workers don’t want to become rich–they know this is impossible–but they want decent lives that enable ownership of little houses, a couple cars, one to get each parent to work, enough food to avoid starvation, enjoy family time, and accrue enough pension and social security benefits to avoid having to eat pet food in their retirement, and/or live in homeless shelters in their twilight years.
Or Roberts’ decision could alternatively be that Ledbetter was a deeply religion-based decision, against female equality.
This is strongly suggested by the case’s outcome: the Ledbetter decision breakdown was 5 Roman Catholic justices v. 4 Protestant and Jewish justices. This was a complete religious-denomination division.
Is it irrelevant that every mainline Protestant denomination, and in every Jewish denomination–even including Orthodox Judaism–women have been ordained as pastors and rabbis? But in Roman Catholicism, women cannot be pastors, to wit, priests. Saints, yes, pastors no. Which means bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes no. (Does this discrimination make sense?) Islamacism and Roman Catholicism are the two largest discrimatory-against-women religions on the planet.
And that’s what the Ledbetter case was about, wasn’t it? This was Ms. Ledbetter’s claim, gender-based discrimination against women, wasn’t it?
GMC, a proposition that the Catholics-only vs. Protestants and Jews vote in Ledbetter didn’t represent bias doesn’t hold a lot of water.
MPS,”But in Roman Catholicism, women cannot be pastors, to wit, priests. Saints, yes, pastors no. Which means bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes no. (Does this discrimination make sense?)”Only in the sense that the first requirement for Saints is that they be dead. All the others require respiration. So dead women are qualified to serve the church; it’s the live ones they don’t like!
MPS,”But in Roman Catholicism, women cannot be pastors, to wit, priests. Saints, yes, pastors no. Which means bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes no. (Does this discrimination make sense?)”Only in the sense that the first requirement for Saints is that they be dead. All the others require respiration. So dead women are qualified to serve the church; it’s the live ones they don’t like!
MPS,”But in Roman Catholicism, women cannot be pastors, to wit, priests. Saints, yes, pastors no. Which means bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes no. (Does this discrimination make sense?)”Only in the sense that the first requirement for Saints is that they be dead. All the others require respiration. So dead women are qualified to serve the church; it’s the live ones they don’t like!
Oh Sweet Jesus, a dreaded triple-post! Sorry about that!
Such a great triple point too Jed. Be proud of that one.
MPS
I’m not gonna beat this one any more. I’ve said what I said, I’ll stand by it 100%. The decision, in the opinion of the majority, which I think has a better legal argument, is based upon the question presented in the petition for cert and the applicable law. The Catholic/non-catholic split you hypothesize is, in a word, ridiculous on it’s face. For all I know, the split correlates with boxers vs. briefs, too. It has about as much import.
Why must a disagreement about the best interpretation and applicatio