Bwahaha! It's a good day. Supreme Court triple slam dunks liberalism!

[jillian]

Front page of Drudge Report!

UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!

I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!

I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!

But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!

So, what will be the flip flop on these?

I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.

So, which flip flop will we get on this one?

I can't wait to hear!

you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".

i think it suits the rightwingnuts.

and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.

Here again we have the same liberal spin.

Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.

Typical!

that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.

at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.

it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

People that compare America to a 3rd world country need to get out more.

It shows an utter lack of even the basics of education or understanding what's out there.

Join the service, peacecorp or any other organisation that helps people in 3rd world shit hole, and then see if you want to make that ignorant comparison.

 

[teapartysamurai]

you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".

i think it suits the rightwingnuts.

and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:



so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.

Here again we have the same liberal spin.

Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.

Typical!

that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.

at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.

it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.

Oh BS!

People "read" cases by ignoring the actual decisions to focus ONLY one how the case should proceed?

That's total 100% homogonized BS.

That's EXACTLY like the Bush v. Gore case where the press completely ignore the fact that Bush v. Gore was a 7/2 decision by the court, siding with Bush that Gore's recount violating the equal protection clause.

Instead the press foscused ONLY on the 5/4 split over whether there could be a recount done. But since the decisions was made so close to when the votes had to be made official, it was a moot decision anyway.

 

[Sallow]

Here again we have the same liberal spin.

Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.

Typical!

that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.

at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.

it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.

Oh BS!

People "read" cases by ignoring the actual decisions to focus ONLY one how the case should proceed?

That's total 100% homogonized BS.

That's EXACTLY like the Bush v. Gore case where the press completely ignore the fact that Bush v. Gore was a 7/2 decision by the court, siding with Bush that Gore's recount violating the equal protection clause.

Instead the press foscused ONLY on the 5/4 split over whether there could be a recount done. But since the decisions was made so close to when the votes had to be made official, it was a moot decision anyway.

Which is funny since..that Scalia said it was a one time emergency decision that should never be used as precedent when deciding similar cases.

Which is a horrible way to decide a case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

But the Chicano woman that is smarter then any white man should be? Hate to break it to you dumb ass, But Congress decides who can and can not be a Supreme Court Justice. Not you.

 

[jillian]

that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.

at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.

it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.

Oh BS!

People "read" cases by ignoring the actual decisions to focus ONLY one how the case should proceed?

That's total 100% homogonized BS.

That's EXACTLY like the Bush v. Gore case where the press completely ignore the fact that Bush v. Gore was a 7/2 decision by the court, siding with Bush that Gore's recount violating the equal protection clause.

Instead the press foscused ONLY on the 5/4 split over whether there could be a recount done. But since the decisions was made so close to when the votes had to be made official, it was a moot decision anyway.

Which is funny since..that Scalia said it was a one time emergency decision that should never be used as precedent when deciding similar cases.

Which is a horrible way to decide a case.

well, when you go against hundreds of years of precedent in order to effectuate a par4tisan agenda, there isn't a lot else they could do.

horrible decision... and not just because of the result.

 

[The Rabbi]

you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".

i think it suits the rightwingnuts.

and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:



so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.

Here again we have the same liberal spin.

Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.

Typical!

that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.

at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.

it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.

Try quoting the relevant text, "counselor":

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

They denied class action status to the plaintiffs. Surely you know what this means, "counselor."

 

[George Costanza]

Here again we have the same liberal spin.

Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.

Typical!

that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.

at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.

it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.

Oh BS!

People "read" cases by ignoring the actual decisions to focus ONLY one how the case should proceed?

That's total 100% homogonized BS.

That's EXACTLY like the Bush v. Gore case where the press completely ignore the fact that Bush v. Gore was a 7/2 decision by the court, siding with Bush that Gore's recount violating the equal protection clause.

Instead the press foscused ONLY on the 5/4 split over whether there could be a recount done. But since the decisions was made so close to when the votes had to be made official, it was a moot decision anyway.

How interesting to hear one lawyer telling another lawyer about law and legal procedure.

Just for giggles, TPS, where did you get your legal training again?

 

[kiwiman127]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

The decision was unanimous.

The decision was unanimous regarding the format of the complain but "But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case." Now if that isn't an ideological split, well what is?
The US is suppose to set the judicial standard of the world with our impartial judical system. In real terms, we have activist judges sitting on our Supreme Court. All have been appointed and confirmed by activists politicians who trying to push their ideology long-term by setting the stage by their ideological driven decisions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Front page of Drudge Report!

UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!

I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!

I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!

But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!

So, what will be the flip flop on these?

I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.

So, which flip flop will we get on this one?

I can't wait to hear!

you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".

i think it suits the rightwingnuts.

and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.

The decision did not say WalMart is to big to sue, it said that, in order to file a class action suit, you have to prove that everyone involved in the suit suffered from the exact same discriminatory policy. In other words, you cannot gather up a bunch of people who did not get promotions, admit that they were all subject to employment policies that were not coordinated by anyone, and insist that they still have the right to sue because the lawyers want to make some money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh BS!

People "read" cases by ignoring the actual decisions to focus ONLY one how the case should proceed?

That's total 100% homogonized BS.

That's EXACTLY like the Bush v. Gore case where the press completely ignore the fact that Bush v. Gore was a 7/2 decision by the court, siding with Bush that Gore's recount violating the equal protection clause.

Instead the press foscused ONLY on the 5/4 split over whether there could be a recount done. But since the decisions was made so close to when the votes had to be made official, it was a moot decision anyway.

Which is funny since..that Scalia said it was a one time emergency decision that should never be used as precedent when deciding similar cases.

Which is a horrible way to decide a case.

well, when you go against hundreds of years of precedent in order to effectuate a par4tisan agenda, there isn't a lot else they could do.

horrible decision... and not just because of the result.

Hundreds of years of precedent? Like what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reading the post here shows me exactly how dumbed down certain Americans are. People are actually applauding an ideologically driven Supreme Court! We have become no better than third world countries. And people are proud?

The decision was unanimous.

The decision was unanimous regarding the format of the complain but "But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case." Now if that isn't an ideological split, well what is?
The US is suppose to set the judicial standard of the world with our impartial judical system. In real terms, we have activist judges sitting on our Supreme Court. All have been appointed and confirmed by activists politicians who trying to push their ideology long-term by setting the stage by their ideological driven decisions.

I thought the World Court was supposed to set the judicial standard for the world.

What, exactly, upsets you about the ideological split you perceive? Are you upset that it exists at all, or that it went against your ideology?

 

[Flopper]

two different cases in Wal Mart. 9-0 in the issue of class action, as there was no unifying action or policy from wal mart they could point to as discriminatory, as much of the policy was delegated.

Individual stores had problems, and cases can procede against the individual stores. But it can be pointed out that the stores with problems acted contrary to stated company policy if there were violations.

The greenhouse gas thing is about judges making law parallel to the legislative and executive process. A huge win for common sense.

The acorn case is more problematic. It amounts to a bill of attainder. Congress said they can't get money because we think they broke the law.

When there is a mountain of evidence against the defendant, you try to keep the case away from a jury, which is what Wal-Mart has successfully done. Suites can now be filed individually by each of the 1.6 million people. Of course that will not happen.

Wal-Mart has been able to delay this case for more than 13 years. Now, each case will have to be refilled. Wal-Mart will be able to delay these cases for years. Unlike individuals, corporation never dies. Witnesses, plaintiffs, and evidence will disappear. My guess is that after a number of years Wal-Mart will settle out of court and no jury will ever hear the evidence.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is a good thing because probably 99% of those cases were worthless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

two different cases in Wal Mart. 9-0 in the issue of class action, as there was no unifying action or policy from wal mart they could point to as discriminatory, as much of the policy was delegated.

Individual stores had problems, and cases can procede against the individual stores. But it can be pointed out that the stores with problems acted contrary to stated company policy if there were violations.

The greenhouse gas thing is about judges making law parallel to the legislative and executive process. A huge win for common sense.

The acorn case is more problematic. It amounts to a bill of attainder. Congress said they can't get money because we think they broke the law.

When there is a mountain of evidence against the defendant, you try to keep the case away from a jury, which is what Wal-Mart has successfully done. Suites can now be filed individually by each of the 1.6 million people. Of course that will not happen.

Wal-Mart has been able to delay this case for more than 13 years. Now, each case will have to be refilled. Wal-Mart will be able to delay these cases for years. Unlike individuals, corporation never dies. Witnesses, plaintiffs, and evidence will disappear. My guess is that after a number of years Wal-Mart will settle out of court and no jury will ever hear the evidence.

There were only 1.6 million people in the class because that many women that have worked for WalMart. There is no way all of those women were turned down for promotion simply because they were women. I am pretty sure that WalMart has women who are managers who, as per company policy, make their own decisions about promotions.

 

[kiwiman127]

The decision was unanimous.

The decision was unanimous regarding the format of the complain but "But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case." Now if that isn't an ideological split, well what is?
The US is suppose to set the judicial standard of the world with our impartial judical system. In real terms, we have activist judges sitting on our Supreme Court. All have been appointed and confirmed by activists politicians who trying to push their ideology long-term by setting the stage by their ideological driven decisions.

I thought the World Court was supposed to set the judicial standard for the world.

What, exactly, upsets you about the ideological split you perceive? Are you upset that it exists at all, or that it went against your ideology?

Is justice served by following an ideological philosophy.
Please take a look at the symbol of justice. Weighing scales and eyes covered, that symbolizes impartiality! When a justice is swayed by an ideology justice can not be served.
THAT is what upsets me about any kind of ideology (left or right) playing into the court.

 

[The Rabbi]

The decision was unanimous regarding the format of the complain but "But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case." Now if that isn't an ideological split, well what is?
The US is suppose to set the judicial standard of the world with our impartial judical system. In real terms, we have activist judges sitting on our Supreme Court. All have been appointed and confirmed by activists politicians who trying to push their ideology long-term by setting the stage by their ideological driven decisions.

I thought the World Court was supposed to set the judicial standard for the world.

What, exactly, upsets you about the ideological split you perceive? Are you upset that it exists at all, or that it went against your ideology?

Is justice served by following an ideological philosophy.
Please take a look at the symbol of justice. Weighing scales and eyes covered, that symbolizes impartiality! When a justice is swayed by an ideology justice can not be served.
THAT is what upsets me about any kind of ideology (left or right) playing into the court.

You're an idiot.
Every justice brings an "ideology" to the court. Is the Constitution to be interpreted strictly or loosely? Is the overwhelming consideration public good or individual freedom? Are ideas and concepts from Europe fair game for US cases or not? Every judge has opinions on these and brings them to bear on the case in question.
Impartiality means that two litigants stand before the judge. It does not matter that one is an elderly black lady and the other is WalMart. They are both entitled to equal hearing, something the liberals seem to have forgotten with their talk about "empathy." The court is not a place for empathy but for justice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The decision was unanimous regarding the format of the complain but "But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case." Now if that isn't an ideological split, well what is?
The US is suppose to set the judicial standard of the world with our impartial judical system. In real terms, we have activist judges sitting on our Supreme Court. All have been appointed and confirmed by activists politicians who trying to push their ideology long-term by setting the stage by their ideological driven decisions.

I thought the World Court was supposed to set the judicial standard for the world.

What, exactly, upsets you about the ideological split you perceive? Are you upset that it exists at all, or that it went against your ideology?

Is justice served by following an ideological philosophy.
Please take a look at the symbol of justice. Weighing scales and eyes covered, that symbolizes impartiality! When a justice is swayed by an ideology justice can not be served.
THAT is what upsets me about any kind of ideology (left or right) playing into the court.

Then look at the fact that the decision to reject the suit was unanimous.

 

[kiwiman127]

I thought the World Court was supposed to set the judicial standard for the world.

What, exactly, upsets you about the ideological split you perceive? Are you upset that it exists at all, or that it went against your ideology?

Is justice served by following an ideological philosophy.
Please take a look at the symbol of justice. Weighing scales and eyes covered, that symbolizes impartiality! When a justice is swayed by an ideology justice can not be served.
THAT is what upsets me about any kind of ideology (left or right) playing into the court.

Then look at the fact that the decision to reject the suit was unanimous.

And as I posted, that unanimous decision was regarding the form of the suit,but the 5-4 basically closed the door on a major company being taken to court my a large group of employees for bias or other all encompassing rights issues. That was a ideologically driven decision. That's not right. It basically throws out the foundation for workers rights. The US working class has been screwed over pretty heavily over the last few decades. Let alone what this does for women's rights. What? Do we have the Taliban on the Supreme Court,,what's next an American style burkas?

 

[AllieBaba]

I thought the World Court was supposed to set the judicial standard for the world.

What, exactly, upsets you about the ideological split you perceive? Are you upset that it exists at all, or that it went against your ideology?

Is justice served by following an ideological philosophy.
Please take a look at the symbol of justice. Weighing scales and eyes covered, that symbolizes impartiality! When a justice is swayed by an ideology justice can not be served.
THAT is what upsets me about any kind of ideology (left or right) playing into the court.

You're an idiot.
Every justice brings an "ideology" to the court. Is the Constitution to be interpreted strictly or loosely? Is the overwhelming consideration public good or individual freedom? Are ideas and concepts from Europe fair game for US cases or not? Every judge has opinions on these and brings them to bear on the case in question.
Impartiality means that two litigants stand before the judge. It does not matter that one is an elderly black lady and the other is WalMart. They are both entitled to equal hearing, something the liberals seem to have forgotten with their talk about "empathy." The court is not a place for empathy but for justice.

Empathy does belong in the courtroom; but only as a servant to justice. Not instead of justice. Judges must feel empathy for people or they are worthless, particularly when it comes to sentencing. Judges must be able to empathize with victims, and if they sympathize with victims it makes sense that they empathize with human beings, period. I know a judge who says that she very consciously applies empathy to her judgements.