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

[George Costanza]

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.

 

[Oddball]

Wal-Mart = "Darling of the right".

Oh, brother!...Do the strawmen ever stop?

 

[George Costanza]

Wal-Mart = "Darling of the right".

Oh, brother!...Do the strawmen ever stop?

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

 

[Trajan]

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.

 

[Oddball]

Wal-Mart = "Darling of the right".

Oh, brother!...Do the strawmen ever stop?

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

The thread is already mucked up with your silly partisan hack strawman.

Just because a pretty fair chunk of leftist wankers reflexively blow a gasket at the mere mention of Wal-Mart, doesn't make them a "Darling of the Right" by default.

But please, feel free to carry on with your Hegelian judicial wet dream.

*unsubscribe*

 

[jillian]

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

it just frustrates him that he doesn't know anything about the constitution. so he lashes out.

 

[George Costanza]

Wal-Mart = "Darling of the right".

Oh, brother!...Do the strawmen ever stop?

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

The thread is already mucked up with your silly partisan hack strawman.

Just because a pretty fair chunk of leftist wankers reflexively blow a gasket at the mere mention of Wal-Mart, doesn't make them a "Darling of the Right" by default.

But please, feel free to carry on with your Hegelian judicial wet dream.

*unsubscribe*

"Hegelian judicial wet dream" - I love it.

See if you can resist the temptation to keep this up until we get a ruling, OK? I'm going to work. See you later in the day.

 

[George Costanza]

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

it just frustrates him that he doesn't know anything about the constitution. so he lashes out.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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

 

[WillowTree]

Wal-Mart = "Darling of the right".

Oh, brother!...Do the strawmen ever stop?

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

Way to go. You claim you and only you can level insults, how elite and arrogant can you get? doyathink?

 

[jillian]

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).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-277.htm

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule23.htm

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[del]

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.

 

[westwall]

Just so we're clear here. Most conservatives I know despise Wal-Mart. Hacks like Limbaugh and Hannity are allways extolling the "virtues" of Wal-Mart but the people we know refuse to shop there as do we. We won't set foot in the place due to work place issues like the one referenced and the fact that Wal-Mart drives small mom and pop businesses out of business.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

don't lawyers form evil corporations?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

No, it's about lawyers pocketing millions and giving the supposed "victims" of the wrong doers pennies. that's justice.

 

[George Costanza]

Just so we're clear here. Most conservatives I know despise Wal-Mart. Hacks like Limbaugh and Hannity are allways extolling the "virtues" of Wal-Mart but the people we know refuse to shop there as do we. We won't set foot in the place due to work place issues like the one referenced and the fact that Wal-Mart drives small mom and pop businesses out of business.

Well, good! I hope what you say is indeed the case - if it is, then I feel somewhat better about my Right Wing friends.

Refreshing post.

 

[George Costanza]

Wal-Mart = "Darling of the right".

Oh, brother!...Do the strawmen ever stop?

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

Way to go. You claim you and only you can level insults, how elite and arrogant can you get? doyathink?

I go out of my way to try to be civil to all posters here - even those who seem to live by the dismissive, snide, insulting posting style. Occasionally, I will react to that by calling it what it is, as I have done here.

Howz about you try to finish out this thread with some rational, civil discussion of the issue yourself, hmmmm?

 

[WillowTree]

Oddball, my old buddy! How's it going this morning, sunshine? Glad to see you will be mucking up yet another thread with your negative, dismissive, insulting posting style.

Hang in there, old sport. Always nice to see you!

Way to go. You claim you and only you can level insults, how elite and arrogant can you get? doyathink?

I go out of my way to try to be civil to all posters here - even those who seem to live by the dismissive, snide, insulting posting style. Occasionally, I will react to that by calling it what it is, as I have done here.

Howz about you try to finish out this thread with some rational, civil discussion of the issue yourself, hmmmm?

nothing I've said has been irrational or uncivil.