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]

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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Seeing as I never said they agreed on "everything," I'm not sure what you're asking me to defend. But, hey, my "simple mind," right?

[pacotelic.livejournal.com]

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wal-mart-v-dukes/

Thr ruling was indeed 9-0, but 4 of the justices wrote dissents on all or part of the ruling. Those are in the record and can be used in future rulings on the same matter once the "class" better defines itself.

Though this is a perfectly armchair exercise, do you, Jeff, think there is any systematic discriminatory behavior on the part of Wal-Mart, today's ruling notwithstanding.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Thr ruling was indeed 9-0, but 4 of the justices wrote dissents on all or part of the ruling. Those are in the record and can be used in future rulings on the same matter once the "class" better defines itself.

They wrote dissents, yes, but the dissents weren't nearly that major to the broader point of the ruling. There's this sudden, yet predictable, urge to turn the dissents into something they aren't. I'm not surprised.

Though this is a perfectly armchair exercise, do you, Jeff, think there is any systematic discriminatory behavior on the part of Wal-Mart, today's ruling notwithstanding.

Systemic? No. Do I think that, in a company that employs millions, there may be individual cases? Absolutely. Putting aside my feelings about discrimination laws for the moment, it's entirely possible (maybe probable) that these women have a case on their own.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

You stated that this was a "unanimous" decision, that means they agreed on everything. They did not agree on everything, therefore you're wrong. It's pretty simple, I don't see why you can't get it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So 9-0 isn't unanimous. Gotcha.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Yes, 9-0 is unanimous. If this case was decided 9-0 I would agree it was unanimous. Unfortunately for your delicate little feelings, this case was decided 5-4 along partisan lines. The only thing that was even close to 9-0 was a small technicality. On the matter of whether the class could be certified, and on the matter of whether the plaintiffs had any sort of case, the decision was 5-4. Get over it, since when does it matter to you what the libs think when your side wins?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I mean, this is where you're 100% factually wrong. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf)

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III

The basics of the case, Part I, and the addendum regarding back pay, Part III, were unanimous. Part II, which regarded questions of scope that did not impact the overall result of the ruling (as all 9 agreed that there should not have been certification) was the only part with a dissent, and thus Part II is still a majority opinion but not unanimous. So yes, 9-0, as in the key part of the case and the third part, is unanimous.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I and III

You do realize there are three parts of the case and that they didn't just skip part II as some sort of stylistic choice, right?

Part I was meaningless, it was a laying out of the facts of the case that would have been identical regardless of the final decision. It's like saying someone agreed to the Index at the front of a book.

Part III was regarding the backpay part of the case. It was a minor technicality and was not really all that important given the disagreement over Part II.

Part II was the meat of the argument. The cons argued that the women had no case against WalMart (regardless of their class status) and also argued that their claim of clss status was not valid and that there was no way they could qualify to be a class. The libs on the other hand argued that their case had merit and that they could get class certification by relying on a different part of the class-action laws. How you think those two views are the same boggles my mind.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the minority agrees with the majority on one point or another, in order for the case to be unanimous they have to agree on all the important points not just some of them. The cons sent these women home empty handed, the libs would have sent them back to the lower court that already certified their class to try again, those are two very different things.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the minority agrees with the majority on one point or another, in order for the case to be unanimous they have to agree on all the important points not just some of them. The cons sent these women home empty handed, the libs would have sent them back to the lower court that already certified their class to try again, those are two very different things.

And all 9 agreed that the case shouldn't have been certified.

Meanwhile, I showed you the unanimous ruling, and you then claim it doesn't exist. Not that you had it to begin with, but there goes any high ground you had regarding the facts. I think we're done here, but I'm sure you'll get some snappy, sarcastic last word in anyway.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, I showed you the unanimous ruling, and you then claim it doesn't exist.

If you show me where in that paragraph it says "unanimous", I'll buy you a cake (the cake is a lie).

I think we're done here, but I'm sure you'll get some snappy, sarcastic last word in anyway.

My irony meter just exploded.

I accept your surrender and thank you for finally admitting you are wrong. Now go slink off to your room so you can have some quality alone time with your copy of Atlas Shrugged and write in your journal about how totally lame liberals are.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Hint: Here's what a unanimous decision looks like:

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. (Tapia v. United States)

Notice the use of the word "unanimous" in there and no mention of dissenting opinions.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You really don't know when to give up, do you? When 9 justices agree on something, it means its unanimous. Quit digging.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

I thought you gave up? I'm disappointed, choosing to give up was the first good decision you'd made all day.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Don't confuse giving up with knowing that the truth won't penetrate.