Justice Ginsburg upset: USSC won't rule outside the law

[jillian]

I'm not following. The decision based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act appears to me to be correct. I'm not sure what exactly it is you are objecting to.

I don't know that I agree with the law or not at this point, but that is irrelevant; which, is the point of this thread.

I'm objecting to the same things that the dissent did. The law provides for 2 years back pay and provides a limited time to bring a claim. However, things like pay disparity or "hostile work place" both occur incrementally. They aren't something that you'd notice at first. So, the time to make a claim shouldn't have begun to run until she learned of the pay disparity.

The decision is awful. If an employer knows that there's no penalty for discrimination then the whole point of Title VII is lost.

 

[jillian]

What about that claim that Republicans created this law and a Republican President signed it?

Your so biased any opinion you provide should obviously be viewed with a healthy disbelief.

Shall I go dig up all the 5-4 decisions when the left won and make unproven biased claims that A) they were partisan, B) that they supported the decision because democrats created the law in question, and C) that their decision was a perversion of the Constitution?

I love when people who can't debate me and have no knowledge or ability to respond on the larger issue think they "got" me on a sidepoint. I've responded to you. Your one note is boring and it's not my fault if your comprehension is weak.

 

[JeffWartman]

Im sure it right wing drivel

This is incoherent and I have no idea what you're attempting to say.

 

[Truthmatters]

Im sure it is right wing drivel.

and I was right it was.

 

[Gunny]

I'm objecting to the same things that the dissent did. The law provides for 2 years back pay and provides a limited time to bring a claim. However, things like pay disparity or "hostile work place" both occur incrementally. They aren't something that you'd notice at first. So, the time to make a claim shouldn't have begun to run until she learned of the pay disparity.

The decision is awful. If an employer knows that there's no penalty for discrimination then the whole point of Title VII is lost.

The dissent is objecting to interpretting the law as written.

I'm still not sure whether or not I agree with the 180 days thing. It IS 6 months. I can easily see the potential for abuse by employer with 180 days, and the potential for abuse by a disgruntled employee who wants to get even when at the time, they knowingly accepted a situation and did nothing about it.

 

[Gunny]

Im sure it is right wing drivel.

and I was right it was.

You were wrong, as usual. Is all you're going to do now is troll and be a pest with nothing substantive to add but crap like this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I love when people who can't debate me and have no knowledge or ability to respond on the larger issue think they "got" me on a sidepoint. I've responded to you. Your one note is boring and it's not my fault if your comprehension is weak.

Debate you? You made a statement that the majority of the court perverted the Constitution and ignored the law. You claimed that a republican Congress and republican president created this "unjust" law and that the "conservatives' on the court were making a biased political stand because of it.

Your "opinion" is tainted by your insistance that this was all a rightwing conspiracy. Your unreasoning bias makes a debate pointless when all you do is make frivilious claims about the great rightwing conspiracy to protect Corporations. You can not even back up your claim. And others have pointed out the obvious, the law was created by a democratic Congress and signed by a democratic president.

I have no problem at all with the dissent. I happen to agree that this particular law is probably badly in need of a remake. I do dislike your partisan garbage. However the majority made the correct decision based on the law, as they understood it.

 

[Care4all]

From what I just learned on C-span's Washington Journal is that this decision by Scalia, Alito etc...

REVERSED 40 YEARS of Precedence regarding this issue.

REVERSED what the US Depts governing equal opportunity have used as the interpretation of this law....which WAS going 180 days back from each date you were discriminated against... a new paycheck of discrimiating pay, would be a new 180 day period....

This court...

REVERSED IT.....got that guys?

We are going backwards....

----------------------------------------------
A little background info on this case:

This woman, who was hired by goodyear tire was a supervisor for them for 20 years, during that period her boss sexually harrassed her too, and said if she wanted a better raise, she would have to go to the local HOTEL with him....all of this came out in the lower court cases and are known as FACTS at this point... in addition to this which are FACTS in this case, is that after the 20 years, the men in equal supervisory positions and the men in much lower supervisory positions WERE PAID 40%-15% more than they paid her.

 

[Little-Acorn]

From what I just learned on C-span's Washington Journal is that this decision by Scalia, Alito etc...

REVERSED 40 YEARS of Precedence regarding this issue.

Meaning that the law has been continuously ignored and disobeyed for 40 years, and this case finally starts obeying it. Oh, my! Don't the justices realize that, once we start breaking a law, we should get a free pass to keep breaking it?

REVERSED what the US Depts governing equal opportunity have used as the interpretation of this law....which WAS going 180 days back from each date you were discriminated against... a new paycheck of discrimiating pay, would be a new 180 day period....

Which, as the majority pointed out, was an incorrect interpretation. The injustice was the decision to pay her a lesser amount, not the subsequent payments it caused. The Court is now correcting past errors.

This court...REVERSED IT.....got that guys?

Yes, and high time, thank God. This is a VERY encouraging case. The list of Federal laws, and Constitutional provisions, this country has been violating and ignoring, is very long. The most convenient excuse is the one I mentioned above: Once we violate the Constitution once, that should give us free rein to keep violating it as often as we please. AKA "precedence". It's the mechanism modern liberals have used ad infinitum, to put their agenda in place and dismantle the Constitutional structure that is (supposedly) the Supreme Law of the Land. Their war cry is basically that a precedent, no matter how unconstitutional, is more Supreme.

This Court is showing signs that that carefree party is over. Bad news for the US v. Miller case, the Roe v. Wade case, the Kelo decision (eminent domain for private usage), the Grutter decision (permittting racism in college admissions), and a long host of other cases in which the justices changed the law to read what they wanted (with no basis in the Constitution) instead of what the elected legislature wanted.

As I said, It may be George W. Bush's best, and longest lasting, legacy, that he appointed judges and justices who tipped the balance and started us on the long road back to "rule of law" instead of the "rule of men" that the leftists have been trying to impose for 70+ years.

We are going backwards....

Considering the dreadful effects that have historically come from the socialistic societies created by the Constitutional violations we have seen so regularly, I submit that "backward" (that is, back to the rule of law as defined by elected legislators) is exactly the way we need to go. My sympathies to the socialists who will soon start missing out on all the goodies they could have expropriated from their fellow men. The bell is starting to toll. And it is tolling for you. Your day is done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From what I just learned on C-span's Washington Journal is that this decision by Scalia, Alito etc...

REVERSED 40 YEARS of Precedence regarding this issue.

REVERSED what the US Depts governing equal opportunity have used as the interpretation of this law....which WAS going 180 days back from each date you were discriminated against... a new paycheck of discrimiating pay, would be a new 180 day period....

This court...

REVERSED IT.....got that guys?

We are going backwards....

----------------------------------------------
A little background info on this case:

This woman, who was hired by goodyear tire was a supervisor for them for 20 years, during that period her boss sexually harrassed her too, and said if she wanted a better raise, she would have to go to the local HOTEL with him....all of this came out in the lower court cases and are known as FACTS at this point... in addition to this which are FACTS in this case, is that after the 20 years, the men in equal supervisory positions and the men in much lower supervisory positions WERE PAID 40%-15% more than they paid her.

Dred Scott was once Precedent also....

 

[Truthmatters]

How would you like this 180 day restriction applied in something that effects you?

The information she needs to gather to find out she in underpayed is not information which is at her access(other peoples pay).

How could she possibly be expected to know this in a timely manner?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How would you like this 180 day restriction applied in something that effects you?

The information she needs to gather to find out she in underpayed is not information which is at her access(other peoples pay).

How could she possibly be expected to know this in a timely manner?

The law is clear, you do not like the law? Then get the Congress to change it. It is not now, nor has it EVER been the power of the Courts to change what a law means or is.

 

[jillian]

The law is clear, you do not like the law? Then get the Congress to change it. It is not now, nor has it EVER been the power of the Courts to change what a law means or is.

The law is clear, you do not like the law? Then get the Congress to change it. It is not now, nor has it EVER been the power of the Courts to change what a law means or is.

I'm so thrilled that your legal expertise allows you to be certain of something that Justices Suter, Ginzberg, Breyer and Stevens said was absolutely incorrect.

And don't ask me again about who passed the law because it is AGAIN, not the law that was the problem. The law is just fine. It's Scalia's court legislating from the bench and deciding they don't like the application of it that's the problem. My comment about the law only applied to the right winger's misrepresentation of Ginzberg's dissent..... hence why I like reading things myself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And if you truly understood the damage a restriction like the one under discussion does in terms of protecting corporations who discriminate, then your ire would be directed at the policies (i.e., republican legislature) that enacted such a restriction.

Your words, not mine...

 

[jillian]

Your words, not mine...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... because you have no argument on the facts, so you'd rather take detours.

Now, go ahead, show us where the four justices were wrong about the law and about applicable precedent.

Go 'head... I look forward to you showing how ScAlito and company didn't eviscerate the law in order to further their corporate agenda.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... because you have no argument on the facts, so you'd rather take detours.

Now, go ahead, show us where the four justices were wrong about the law and about applicable precedent.

Go 'head... I look forward to you showing how ScAlito and company didn't eviscerate the law in order to further their corporate agenda.

Last I checked they are wrong because I majority voted they were.... Unless thats NOT how our Supreme Court works? Does this mean I can bring up EVER 5-4 decision by a liberal majority and demand you explain why the dissent was wrong? I can think of ONE REALLY big 5-4 decision you will have a very hard time explaining Constitionality of.

 

[jillian]

Last I checked they are wrong because I majority voted they were.... Unless thats NOT how our Supreme Court works? Does this mean I can bring up EVER 5-4 decision by a liberal majority and demand you explain why the dissent was wrong? I can think of ONE REALLY big 5-4 decision you will have a very hard time explaining Constitionality of.

The majority? You mean Bush's brigade? RAFMAO!!! There have been wrong Court decisions before. I'd draw your attention to Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott for starters. If they were never wrong, the Court would never reverse itself. In fact Brown v. Board of Ed; Loving v Virginia; and Griswold v. Connecticut are three such cases I can think of offhand. (Though Loving and Griswold may have reversed policy as opposed to prior decisions of the Court. It's been a while and I don't recall specifically).

The loonies have said they don't believe in precedent. They're the ones legislating from the bench.

Which 5 to 4 decision troubles you so?

 

[Care4all]

The law is clear, you do not like the law? Then get the Congress to change it. It is not now, nor has it EVER been the power of the Courts to change what a law means or is.

If the law was ''so clear'' then why was the law interpreted differently for the last 43 years by the gvt agencies handling discrimination and by the lower courts, until NOW, until this SC?


it was this SC that changed what everyone had been acustomed as the law to mean when it came to ''salary'' discrimination being different than other work discrimination, like dismissing you, not promoting you, because it is not information to prove such readily from what this person on c-span said....?

 

[Annie]

If the law was ''so clear'' then why was the law interpreted differently for the last 43 years by the gvt agencies handling discrimination and by the lower courts, until NOW, until this SC?


it was this SC that changed what everyone had been acustomed as the law to mean when it came to ''salary'' discrimination being different than other work discrimination, like dismissing you, not promoting you, because it is not information to prove such readily from what this person on c-span said....?

Seriously, sometimes it's a cultural thing-Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned precedent.

Don't you think Dred Scott should have been 'reversed'? (That was moving backwards?) Thanks to the 13th and 14th amendments. Sometimes laws need to get with the times.

Now Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Some people have claimed, "All judges legislate from the bench to some extent". In some cases, the evidence supporting it seems obvious, such as when O'Conner invented a timetable out of thinn air by which the University of Michigan should eventually end its racial discrimination. Or when a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the risk of hurting people's feelings was more important than 1st amendment restrictions on speech, and so ruled that the Campaign Finance "Reform" act was constitutional.

But what might a so-called "conservative" judge do, that is similar?

Suppose a judge thought it was wrong to tax incomes. He thinks taxes should only be on duties, excises, etc. He gets a case where someone says he shouldn't have to pay such-and-such a part of his income taxes, and the IRS says he should pay. Despite the clear language of the 16th amendment saying income taxes are OK, this judge says that income taxes are an "unnecessary burden", and so rules that the man does not have to pay. This forms a precedent, and suddenly income taxes are being disallowed right and left as a result.

That would be one (hypothetical) example of a so-called "conservative" judge legislating from the bench. But has anyone ever seen any judge ruling MORE in favor of "conservative" law than the law itself specifies? Or ruling against any law that people felt was too liberal even though it was properly legislated and signed into law?

So-called "liberal" judges err or the side of liberalism frequently. But do so-called "conservative" judges really do it too?

Please, name ONE example.