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]

Clarence Thomas' wife is employed by various organizations that either benefit directly from Citizens United (by being able to pump unlimited money into elections) or advocate for issues considered in the decision).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Oh right. That lunacy.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

You're right, it is lunacy that a Supreme Court justice can have such obvious conflicts of interest, and violate financial disclosure rules so flagrantly, without any risk of actual consequences.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Please. The lunacy is the belief that the spouse of a justice cannot be politically active.

But let me guess - you don't think Kagan will have to recuse when the Obamacare cases eventually hit the Court, right?

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

The spouses of justices can do whatever they want, as long as the justice doesn't involve himself in cases that involve the interests of his spouse. His wife is/has been employed by several organizations with deep interest in Citizens United and the Obama healthcare plan. His decision in Citizens United was exactly in agreement with his wife's interests. Because of that decision, his wife can be expected to benefit both in her career and in a financial sense.

There's also the fact that Thomas LIED on a financial disclosure form (and then laughably claimed he didn't understand the law) when he claimed his wife had no income in order to cover up his conflict of interest. If anything, the lie is probably worse than the conflict of interest since his conflict of interest is just an ethical failing while lying on the form is a crime.

I suppose if Kagan was employed by a lobbying organization and had a financial interest in the outcome, then yes, but I've heard nothing to suggest that.

But let me guess - you think Kagan should recuse herself but that Thomas should stay on to decide the case when it hits the court, right?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I suppose if Kagan was employed by a lobbying organization and had a financial interest in the outcome, then yes, but I've heard nothing to suggest that.

Oh man. Wow.