The U.S. Supremes - Big Business Buddies or a Legitimate Court?

[whitehall]

Jeez George, did you just step out of an inane sit-com? How did you come to the conclusion that Big Business is the enemy? Did you watch too many Michael Moore videos or subscribe to too many George Soros blogs? Big Business takes the risks and invests the capital and employes the people who make the goods and keep the economy running well enough to allow you to buy the computer to write stupid stuff.

 

[jillian]

Jeez George, did you just step out of an inane sit-com? How did you come to the conclusion that Big Business is the enemy? Did you watch too many Michael Moore videos or subscribe to too many George Soros blogs? Big Business takes the risks and invests the capital and employes the people who make the goods and keep the economy running well enough to allow you to buy the computer to write stupid stuff.

where did he say business is evil? nice recitation of rightwingnut talking points though.

it would be really nice if you didn't post when you don't understand what people say.

thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There has been a lot of discussion here recently about whether or not the Republican Party is in bed with Big Business. Well, today folks, a case goes before the USSC that will go a long way toward giving some indication of whether or not that actually is the case.

Walmart, that Darling of the Right, has been sued in a class action suit alleging (I know you are going to find this hard to believe) employment discrimination against female employees. That's right - I'm not kidding.

The issue before The Supremes has to do with the size of the class. Over two million women are estimated to comprise the class requesting certification. The class was certified by a federal court. Walmart appealed. A federal appellate court (who else? the 9th Circuit) upheld the certification. The issue is now before The Supremes.

The decision will have a huge impact on Walmart and upon Big Business litigation in general. If the certification is struck down, it will be a huge blow to individual workers and a big boost to Big Business in general, because it will limit the size of class action suits that can be brought against employer corporations.

So, folks - today, we find out what kind of a Supreme Court we have here. I'm betting the certification gets struck down. If it does, I'm back on here Big Time with all kinds of I told ya so's. If not, I'm back on here saying good on ya, Supremes - I misjudged you.

Let's keep an eye on this bad boy.

Did you pay any attention to the orals today?

But when the female employees’ lawyer, Joseph M. Sellers of Washington, started his side of the argument, it did not take long for Justice Kennedy to say that “it’s not clear to me: what is the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart has adopted, under your theory of the case.” Store managers, the attorney replied, have been given “unchecked discretion,” and they use it to discriminate.
But, Kennedy said, “It’s hard for me to see…Your complaint faces in two directions. Number one, you said this is a culture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that’s going on. Then in the next breath, you say, well, now these supervisors have too much discretion. It seems to me there’s an inconsistency there, and I’m just not sure what the unlawful policy is.”
Sellers chose in reply to dwell on the breadth of the store managers’ discretion, saying “There’s no guidance whatsoever about how to make those decisions.” The discretion, he added, is then used within “a very strong corporate culture” that leads managers to be “informed by the values the company provides.” The response itself seemed contradictory: if there was “no guidance whatsoever,” how were the managers led to apply company “values”?

Argument recap: A fatal flaw detected? : SCOTUSblog

I know that the Queen told Alice that she sometimes believed in six impossible things before breakfast, but this would boggle even her mind.

Wal-Mart gave its managers total discretion in promoting whoever they wanted to, and they used that discretion to discriminate as individuals. That lack of direction amounts to a directive to discriminate?

Sorry, but if the court certifies this as a class that only proves they like lawyers. If, however, they refuse to certify it, it at least proves they have some common sense. I honestly don't understand why this even got this far, other than that it started in the 9th.

Tell me, why would you use one really bad case as a the deciding factor on if this court is pro business? Why not use all the cases they decided against business?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

thomas is stupid
scalia ia a nazi
alito is a goombah
roberts ia a wasp and a hater


there; now I don't have to come back to this thread....



unsubscribe.

interesting way to dismiss what you don't want to hear.

truth: citizens united is the worst decision written by the court since Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson and Korematsu

ledbetter was an evisceration of the anti-discrimination laws... at least when it comes to salaries.

heaven knows what they'll do in the walmart case.

I am willing to make a bet with you, and I will let you name the terms. I bet that I can provide more proof that the current court is not pro business than you can that it is.

Want to try?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

each woman will take home $2.00 and each lawyer will take home 2 Billion. Yeah, we know how that works.

it's not about each individual's monetary award. it's about stopping the corporate practice.

even you should be able to understand that.


although i do love the rightwingnut "i hate lawyers" theme, cause, you know, heaven forbid anyone should represent people without getting paid by the hour.

hint: even lawyers are entitled to get paid.

let's see you work for someone for years in the hopes that maybe you'll get some money at the end.

The plaintiffs are arguing that the corporate practice does not exist.

By the way, I was a member of a class action recently. There was a design flaw in a graphics chip that was installed in my computer that caused it to overheat and burn up other parts of the computer. I was told that I could get a replacement for the computer, and the chip maker offered me a entry level consumer model laptop to replace my premium business laptop.

For some obscure reason my lawyers, who I never met, had no objection to me getting screwed out of about $1000.00 dollars worth of computer. I wonder if that might be because, as part of the settlement, they got almost $100 million dollars. Why did another lawyer that specializes in representing the winners of class action suits against their lawyers have to step in and file an objection to the proposed settlement?

 

[George Costanza]

thomas is stupid
scalia ia a nazi
alito is a goombah
roberts ia a wasp and a hater


there; now I don't have to come back to this thread....



unsubscribe.

interesting way to dismiss what you don't want to hear.

truth: citizens united is the worst decision written by the court since Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson and Korematsu

ledbetter was an evisceration of the anti-discrimination laws... at least when it comes to salaries.

heaven knows what they'll do in the walmart case.

I am willing to make a bet with you, and I will let you name the terms. I bet that I can provide more proof that the current court is not pro business than you can that it is.

Want to try?

Let's see - the only business decision I know of by the current court, is the one where they allowed big business unlimited spending for campaign ads. A decision of that nature gives big business much more control over who gets elected. I would certainly classify that one as pro-big business.

I'm sure there have been other business decisions by our current court of which I am not aware. But let's face it, we have more than a couple of card carrying right wingnuts on the court right now.

I'm going with pro business. We'll talk again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

interesting way to dismiss what you don't want to hear.

truth: citizens united is the worst decision written by the court since Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson and Korematsu

ledbetter was an evisceration of the anti-discrimination laws... at least when it comes to salaries.

heaven knows what they'll do in the walmart case.

I am willing to make a bet with you, and I will let you name the terms. I bet that I can provide more proof that the current court is not pro business than you can that it is.

Want to try?

Let's see - the only business decision I know of by the current court, is the one where they allowed big business unlimited spending for campaign ads. A decision of that nature gives big business much more control over who gets elected. I would certainly classify that one as pro-big business.

I'm sure there have been other business decisions by our current court of which I am not aware. But let's face it, we have more than a couple of card carrying right wingnuts on the court right now.

I'm going with pro business. We'll talk again.

That was not the current court, and touched on business only peripherally.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

You need to provide a link and demonstrate just what the issue is.

is the issue the size of the class? Why is that an issue?

All you have given us so far is air. SCOTUS is evil. Walmart is EVIL. Predatory Trial Lawyers are good.

(You do realize in most class actions, the supposed beneficiaries of the class get squat, the bad guy just promises not to re offend them, and the plaintiff's lawyers run off with the lion's share of the cash.)

 

[Baruch Menachem]

So the issue here is whether corporate is responsible for the behavior of the managers, when the managers had total discretion.

The managers were not directed to discriminate, therefore the company is guilty of a policy it did not have?

 

[Trajan]

There has been a lot of discussion here recently about whether or not the Republican Party is in bed with Big Business. Well, today folks, a case goes before the USSC that will go a long way toward giving some indication of whether or not that actually is the case.

Walmart, that Darling of the Right, has been sued in a class action suit alleging (I know you are going to find this hard to believe) employment discrimination against female employees. That's right - I'm not kidding.

The issue before The Supremes has to do with the size of the class. Over two million women are estimated to comprise the class requesting certification. The class was certified by a federal court. Walmart appealed. A federal appellate court (who else? the 9th Circuit) upheld the certification. The issue is now before The Supremes.

The decision will have a huge impact on Walmart and upon Big Business litigation in general. If the certification is struck down, it will be a huge blow to individual workers and a big boost to Big Business in general, because it will limit the size of class action suits that can be brought against employer corporations.

So, folks - today, we find out what kind of a Supreme Court we have here. I'm betting the certification gets struck down. If it does, I'm back on here Big Time with all kinds of I told ya so's. If not, I'm back on here saying good on ya, Supremes - I misjudged you.

Let's keep an eye on this bad boy.

Did you pay any attention to the orals today?

But when the female employees’ lawyer, Joseph M. Sellers of Washington, started his side of the argument, it did not take long for Justice Kennedy to say that “it’s not clear to me: what is the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart has adopted, under your theory of the case.” Store managers, the attorney replied, have been given “unchecked discretion,” and they use it to discriminate.
But, Kennedy said, “It’s hard for me to see…Your complaint faces in two directions. Number one, you said this is a culture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that’s going on. Then in the next breath, you say, well, now these supervisors have too much discretion. It seems to me there’s an inconsistency there, and I’m just not sure what the unlawful policy is.”
Sellers chose in reply to dwell on the breadth of the store managers’ discretion, saying “There’s no guidance whatsoever about how to make those decisions.” The discretion, he added, is then used within “a very strong corporate culture” that leads managers to be “informed by the values the company provides.” The response itself seemed contradictory: if there was “no guidance whatsoever,” how were the managers led to apply company “values”?

Argument recap: A fatal flaw detected? : SCOTUSblog

I know that the Queen told Alice that she sometimes believed in six impossible things before breakfast, but this would boggle even her mind.

Wal-Mart gave its managers total discretion in promoting whoever they wanted to, and they used that discretion to discriminate as individuals. That lack of direction amounts to a directive to discriminate?

Sorry, but if the court certifies this as a class that only proves they like lawyers. If, however, they refuse to certify it, it at least proves they have some common sense. I honestly don't understand why this even got this far, other than that it started in the 9th.

Tell me, why would you use one really bad case as a the deciding factor on if this court is pro business? Why not use all the cases they decided against business?

yes, in fact it didn't appear to go well, looks like, oh, a 7-2 to me....*shrugs*


snip-

The Justices were also concerned that denying the company the ability to defend itself against individual claims would violate due process, and that it could result in awards to class members who were never victims of discrimination.

"Didn't the district judge say because of the numbers we couldn't possibly have the hearing in each case on whether the particular woman was owed back pay?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who made her name as a lawyer arguing gender discrimination cases.

Added Justice Sonia Sotomayor: "I'm a little confused. . . . You're going to say, through my statistical model, I will be able to identify those women in the class who are deserving of pay raises. What that doesn't answer is when in this process the defendant is going to be given an opportunity to defend against that finding."

Far from being a passive enabler, Wal-Mart also had strong antidiscrimination policies in place at its stores. While individual managers may have made questionable decisions, those actions or their impact on women can't all legally be ascribed to the company. With thousands of stores across the country Chief Justice John Roberts noted, "you're going to have some bad apples."

In its 1977 Teamsters decision, the Supreme Court ruled that defendants accused of systemic discrimination have the right to address the claims of their accusers individually, and the same should apply here. Trial lawyers may have figured that targeted an unsympathetic company like Wal-Mart would offer enough political momentum to carry the day, but their legal theories are an affront to the law and common sense.

Review & Outlook: The Wal-Mart Watershed - WSJ.com

 

[George Costanza]

I am willing to make a bet with you, and I will let you name the terms. I bet that I can provide more proof that the current court is not pro business than you can that it is.

Want to try?

Let's see - the only business decision I know of by the current court, is the one where they allowed big business unlimited spending for campaign ads. A decision of that nature gives big business much more control over who gets elected. I would certainly classify that one as pro-big business.

I'm sure there have been other business decisions by our current court of which I am not aware. But let's face it, we have more than a couple of card carrying right wingnuts on the court right now.

I'm going with pro business. We'll talk again.

That was not the current court, and touched on business only peripherally.

The case in point was decided on January 21, 2010. The only appointment since then has been Justice Kagen in August of 2010. I fail to see how that affects my point.

Interestingly, it was a 5-4 decision. Care to guess who the majority justices were? Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted for the majority, with the swing vote justice, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion.

Supreme Court OKs Corporate Campaign Contributions | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 21, 2010 | PBS

There is an interesting video at this site - I suggest viewing it.

 

[George Costanza]

You need to provide a link and demonstrate just what the issue is.

is the issue the size of the class? Why is that an issue?

All you have given us so far is air. SCOTUS is evil. Walmart is EVIL. Predatory Trial Lawyers are good.

(You do realize in most class actions, the supposed beneficiaries of the class get squat, the bad guy just promises not to re offend them, and the plaintiff's lawyers run off with the lion's share of the cash.)

The only issue is the size of the class.

 

[Trajan]

as I alluded to earlier, they all have their playas who setup to the trough...




Did Obama Administration Play Favorites With Energy Loans?
Green Firms Financed By Obama Fundraiser Steve Westly Score Millions in Federal Loans

snip-
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy lent more than half a billion dollars to companies backed by Westly's California venture capital firm. In 2010, the White House tapped Westly for a seat on a special energy advisory panel that gives him regular access to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Westly boasts on his website that his firm is "uniquely positioned" to take advantage of the Obama administration's interest in green energy.

Congress has given the Energy Department authority to distribute billions of dollars in public funds to help stimulate the economy and seed a new generation of clean energy firms. A joint investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity that will air on World News with Diane Sawyer tonight has found that Westly is just one of several political allies of the president who have ties to companies receiving chunks of that money through loans, grants, or loan guarantees.

SNIP-
But efforts to analyze the criteria the Energy Department has used to select the companies that have received federal loans or loan guarantees have proved challenging, even for government auditors. Last summer, the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department's loan program. The report concluded that the department had "treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others."

The author of the GAO report, Franklin Rusco, told ABC News that Energy Department officials used an opaque process to select loan recipients. He said the agency could not, or would not, explain why some companies were given a quick green light for approval, while others waited years for a response.

(here- Green bundler with the golden touch - The Center for Public Integrity)

Obama Fundraiser Steve Westly - ABC News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's see - the only business decision I know of by the current court, is the one where they allowed big business unlimited spending for campaign ads. A decision of that nature gives big business much more control over who gets elected. I would certainly classify that one as pro-big business.

I'm sure there have been other business decisions by our current court of which I am not aware. But let's face it, we have more than a couple of card carrying right wingnuts on the court right now.

I'm going with pro business. We'll talk again.

That was not the current court, and touched on business only peripherally.

The case in point was decided on January 21, 2010. The only appointment since then has been Justice Kagen in August of 2010. I fail to see how that affects my point.

Interestingly, it was a 5-4 decision. Care to guess who the majority justices were? Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted for the majority, with the swing vote justice, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion.

Supreme Court OKs Corporate Campaign Contributions | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 21, 2010 | PBS

There is an interesting video at this site - I suggest viewing it.

Which one was the deciding vote? Do you honestly consider Kennedy a right wing, pro business, justice?

 

[BenNatuf]

thomas is stupid
scalia ia a nazi
alito is a goombah
roberts ia a wasp and a hater


there; now I don't have to come back to this thread....



unsubscribe.

interesting way to dismiss what you don't want to hear.

truth: citizens united is the worst decision written by the court since Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson and Korematsu

ledbetter was an evisceration of the anti-discrimination laws... at least when it comes to salaries.

heaven knows what they'll do in the walmart case.

Claiming someone doesn't know the constitution while you lament the court upholding the ability of an assembly of persons to exercize their 1st amendment rights because you don't happen to particualarly like those assemblies... priceless.

Tell us, how do you feel about GE exercizing thiers on MSNBC and NBC? Viacom? (I do believe they are a "corporation") How about Planned parenthood INC? The Times CO? Don't worry, we already know how you feel about NewsCorp. Should we outlaw editorial content and media "endoresements" so no corporation uses thier undue influence to sway the public? What is the functional difference between these corporations and any other? Each of them exist for one purpose, to earn a return for thier owners.

 

[BenNatuf]

He knows just enough to get himself in over his head. But he is sometimes amusing, as with his "Hegelian judicial wet dream" comment. I liked that one.

Monitor this case, Jilian - it is really an important one for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the decision will go a long way toward letting us know what kind of Supreme Court we really have here.

he has the odd interesting turn of phrase.

i know re the walmart case. i hope we're wrong, but i'm pretty sure they're going to de-certify, as well. that way they can effectively end the ability of workers to enforce their rights.... just an extension of the "philosophy" behind ledbetter.

*Edit* I would also point out that I read the walmart's petition for cert and the question certified by the Court was the first question,

I. Whether claims for monetary relief can be
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2)—which by its terms is limited to injunctive
or corresponding declaratory relief—and, if so, under
what circumstances.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Wal-Mart-petition-8-25-10.pdf

But the Court went further and certified another question as well:

Dec 6 2010 Petition GRANTED limited to Question I presented by the petition. In addition to Question I, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a).

Search

Rule 23(a) provides:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 23

it does not seem to me that walmart even asked them to go that far. so i think that speaks volumes about what this court is going to do.

First Justices are stupid if they don't ask questions, now justices are biased if they do... you should make up your mind which theory you want to adhere to.

Also it would appear you don't even read the petitions you link (or maybe you're just intellectually dishonest enough to ignore what doesn't suit you on purpose)

I. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW TO
DECIDE WHETHER AND HOW RULE
23(B)(2) APPLIES TO MONETARY CLAIMS
AND RESOLVE THE THREE-WAY
CONFLICT ON THIS QUESTION .........................9
A. The Circuits Have Split Three
Ways .......................................................10
B. The Ninth Circuit’s Standard Is
Clearly Wrong ........................................12
C. The Question Is Important And
Recurring................................................16
II. THE DECISION BELOW CREATES OR
EXACERBATES NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL
CONFLICTS CONCERNING RULE 23,
TITLE VII, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE,
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE
RULES ENABLING ACT....................................17
A. The Ninth Circuit Improperly
Relieved Plaintiffs Of Their
Burden Of Proof .....................................18

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Wal-Mart-petition-8-25-10.pdf