Now THIS is a feminist issue

[american-geist.livejournal.com]

Hey friends, enjoy having no rights, forever! Especially ladies, apparently you got discriminated against too many times for the Supreme Court. This country is horrible!

"The Supreme Court put the brakes on a massive job discrimination lawsuit against mega-retailer Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., saying sweeping class-action status that could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of current and former female workers was simply too large.

The ruling Monday was a big victory for the nation's largest private employer, and the business community at large.

The high-profile case– perhaps the most closely watched of the high court's term– is among the most important dealing with corporate versus worker rights that the justices have ever heard, and could eventually impact nearly every private employer, large and small.

The case is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (10-277)."



 

Comments

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

The conservative majority on the Court is so anti-worker, and pro-corporate, that they don't even bother to pretend anymore. As long as the corporations and their supporters keep paying obscene speaking fees to the Justices, and employing their spouses and children, they could commit murder without any consequences.

This is why it annoys me so when people say there's no difference between the parties, or suggest that people shouldn't vote. Elections have consequences. Does anyone think Al Gore would have nominated Samuel Alito or John Roberts? Would Jimmy Carter or Dukakis have nominated the other corporate shillsconservative Justices on the bench?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Obama's been packing the courts with far left radical liberals!
(but i agree with your point, obviously Obama's moderate picks are considerably better for the working/middle classes than whoever McCain would have put there)

[adrunkencadence.livejournal.com]

Bad is better than badder is a rotten way to look at things. But we don't live in an ideal world...

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

what is one to do in a rotten world?
even if one were to argue this world is not rotten, what if a world was, then what?

[adrunkencadence.livejournal.com]

Fight to change it. Through education, through direct action, through rallies (for morale- not ends in themselves), through legislation, through realizing the power we have when we come together and recognize the multifaceted factions- as they were- are more similar than those in power ever wished us to know or recognize.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Only the ignorant think there is no difference between the parties. SCOTUS is but one area that exemplifies that fact.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It's true, the Roberts' court is one of the most conservative since the late 1920s under Hoover.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I do my best, luckily right-wingers are easily amused.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You, uh, realize that this was unanimous, right?

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

You, uh, realize that there's a dissent at the end signed by the 4 liberal justices which means it was not unanimous, right? Nice try though, you're always good for a laugh.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The dissent has nothing to do with the basics of the case, only on the scope of the case. All 9 agreed that the case lacked merit.

But nice try, though. Maybe next time.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Did you actually read the decision or did you just pick up the salient points from some right-wing blog? Because whatever "source" you relied on obviously didn't give you all the important information.

The "liberal" wing of the court concurred with Sections I and III of the decision and dissented in Section II. Section I is uncontroversial and just sets out the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties. Section III is concerned with one issue only, whether or not the plaintiffs can include claims for backpay in the action (they say that the plaintiffs can not).

Section II is the meat of the argument of the "conservative" wing of the court and is the part that the "liberals" disagreed with. It lays out the argument of Scalia that the class cannot be certified in any way.

The dissent, written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by the other "liberal" justices, disagrees with this notion that there is no way to certify a class in this case. They agree that the backpay claims are inappropriate under the rule claimed by the plaintiffs but argue that the case should be remanded for a decision on whether or not it can proceed under a different rule (which is quite different from the Section II decision delivered by Scalia which states that the class cannot be considered under any rule).

In fact, in her dissent Ginsburg states that "Absent an error of law or an abuse of discretion, an appellate tribunal has no warrant to upset the District Court's finding of commonality." This doesn't seem to jive with your assertion that she agreed with the "conservatives" on almost all of the decision since the "conservatives" entire argument is that they do have an ability to overturn the decision of the District Court.

The difference between the views of the "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court is significant and important. The "conservatives" would throw the case out entirely, the "liberals" would send it back to consider a possible other avenue of certification. This is the difference between turning someone's car around and throwing a brick through the window sending it off a cliff.

If I could offer you advice for the future, don't just take the word of any blog (liberal or conservative), investigate for yourself and you will gain insight unavailable through any other avenue.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Did you actually read the decision or did you just pick up the salient points from some right-wing blog?

No, I read the decision. Did you? Or maybe some also-wrong left wing blog told you this story you decided to ramble on about.

The difference between the views of the "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court is significant and important. The "conservatives" would throw the case out entirely, the "liberals" would send it back to consider a possible other avenue of certification. This is the difference between turning someone's car around and throwing a brick through the window sending it off a cliff.

Actually, the difference is that all 9 agreed that the case never should have been certified. That's the salient point. So you're still wrong. As we're used to at this point.

If I could offer you advice for the future, don't just take the word of any blog (liberal or conservative), investigate for yourself and you will gain insight unavailable through any other avenue.

And if I could offer you some advice, stop trying to correct me - it never ends well for you.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

No, I read the decision. Did you? Or maybe some also-wrong left wing blog told you this story you decided to ramble on about.

I did read it, front to back, I even quoted from it so you could actually read part of it (if even a small part).

Actually, the difference is that all 9 agreed that the case never should have been certified. That's the salient point. So you're still wrong. As we're used to at this point.

Except that the liberals agreed that it shouldn't have been certified under rule 23(a)(2) but that it could very well be certified under the different requirements of rule 23(b)(3), while the conservatives threw the case out altogether and said there was no way to certify. That's a huge difference since the liberals would allow the plaintiffs to go on with some tweaking of their case and a revisiting of the case by the Court of Appeals or the District Court while the conservatives would not.

And if I could offer you some advice, stop trying to correct me - it never ends well for you.

That's funny, I think it's always ended well. Every single time we've disagreed (including this one) it's been because you read into something with your biases and reached an erroneous conclusion. I suggest you re-read the opinion, assuming you actually did read it and aren't just trying to save face by claiming you did (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf). Try to read it without your insane libertarian bias, and maybe you'll see the actual point of the dissent and how it fundamentally differs from the Decision of the Court.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I did read it, front to back, I even quoted from it so you could actually read part of it (if even a small part).

That's unfortunate. I can't figure out how you got it so wrong, then.

Except that the liberals agreed that it shouldn't have been certified under rule 23(a)(2) but that it could very well be certified under the different requirements of rule 23(b)(3), while the conservatives threw the case out altogether and said there was no way to certify. That's a huge difference since the liberals would allow the plaintiffs to go on with some tweaking of their case and a revisiting of the case by the Court of Appeals or the District Court while the conservatives would not.

Which means that all 9 agreed it shouldn't have been certified. Unanimously. Thanks!

That's funny, I think it's always ended well. Every single time we've disagreed (including this one) it's been because you read into something with your biases and reached an erroneous conclusion.

You mean read, looked for the facts, and came away with the facts. An understandable error.

Try to read it without your insane libertarian bias, and maybe you'll see the actual point of the dissent and how it fundamentally differs from the Decision of the Court.

I'm not the one who needs to read it again, I'm sorry to say. You seem to think there was some deep disagreement on the merits of the case - that's, unfortunately for you, incredibly, deeply wrong. But you won't ever come around on it, so I suppose we're at a stalemate yet again because you can't get the facts to fit your narrative.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Or, more simply for your simple mind, if the liberals agreed with the conservatives on everything, why did they bother filing a dissent? Why did Ginsburg waste her precious time writing it, and why did Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan waste their times reading it and signing on to it, if they agreed with everything the conservatives said? What do you think is the difference between the Decision of the Court and the Dissenting Opinion?

[kharmii.livejournal.com]

Is that why more of the liberal judges voted in favor of the businesses on Kelo vs London?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Shh.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I think your brain is leaking, you should have that hissing sound checked out.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

We weren't talking about Kelo v. City of New London. That case is in no way similar or connected to this case. I happen to disagree with the liberal justices on eminent domain, but that's irrelevant to what we're discussing here. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the justices were siding with use of government power (something that is common among liberals) as opposed to abuse of corporate power (which is common among conservatives). That case had nothing to do with the situations faced in this case. It also had nothing to do with workers (I did claim that the cons were "anti-worker" in the comment you applied to). Try to actually come up with a relevant case next time, or are you admitting that there are no cases where the liberal justices sided with corporations against workers rights?

[kharmii.livejournal.com]

The liberals sided with the ability of businesses to take peoples' homes if they could generate more tax revenue. It especially happens in bad neighborhoods that would look better with nice commercial properties (class warfare?) That's all liberals care about...getting more of our money so they can continue their power grab.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

The liberals sided with the ability of government to seize properties and turn them over to businesses. As I said, I disagree with the eminent domain decision as much as I disagree with this WalMart decision, but saying that there's any connection between the two cases proves you don't know what you're talking about.

[kharmii.livejournal.com]

I never said there was a connection.

I'm just showing how you are being ridiculous by saying that conservatives hate people and love corporations, while liberals always vote for the people (unless it's about raising tax revenue by taking peoples' homes away so fancy hotels can get built. LOL!)

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I never said the libs on the court are perfect. They seem to be a bit enamored of certain types of government power (eminent domain being one of them). That being said, just because they sided with the use of eminent domain (because they hew to a philosophy of greater government power) doesn't mean that they "love corporations" or are against "the people". They would have supported government use of eminent domain no matter what the government ultimately decided to do with the land (make it into a park, build a government building on it, erect a monument to Mao...)