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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the case that made it to the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the discrimination case, only as to whether the size and scope of the class had merit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you think Wal-Mart paid off all 9 justices, eh?

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I've come to the conclusion there's no use debating Jeff. He has his set beliefs and everything agrees with them no matter how much massaging and outright lying is necessary.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No amount of whining from you is going to change reality. The facts are the facts, I have no choice but to abide by them.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Right about what? That the cons on the Supreme Court don't receive huge speaking fees from corporations and then deliver decisions that agree with those corporations?

[spamwarrior.livejournal.com]

I find myself in the same uncomfortable boat.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Based on what?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

You're totally insane.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

All right, all right.

The idea you expressed — that all nine judges of the Supreme Court could be paid off by a defendant without anyone finding out — is completely absurd and ignorant. Your advocacy of this idea discredits you and every group you claim to stand for.

Better?

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Not all 9, just 5 (4 did not deliver an opinion they would agree with).