The Supreme Court today struck down a massive class action lawsuit by women throughout the Country who were claiming discrimination in wages and promotion opportunities based upon their gender.
The Majority Opinion, written by Antoin Scalia and supported by Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, claims that the lower court classification of the female employees as a discriminated against class was not legally viable under prior precedent. The women therefore can continue to press forward in their individual cases, at their own expense, but will not be eligible for a class action settlement.
That these women received less pay and a lack of promotion opportunities, under the unofficial policies of local management, when compared to men in the same jobs with less senority and lower performance ratings, is not statistically in question. And yet, with the fig leaf of an 'official' corporate non-discrimination policy, Walmart was able to escape liability in the class action venue of legal pursuit by the highest court in the land.
This will allow Walmart to avoid a mass settlement and use divide and conquer tactics to deal with each offended party individually, putting a greater burden and cost on these working class ladies to pursue their own suits agaisnt the corporate giant.
This is a big win for corporate interests, and gives credance to Robert Kennedy Junior's recent claims that this current Supreme Court favors Big Corporations First, Big Government next, and puts the rights and recourse of everyday people last.
Showing posts with label The Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Supreme Court. Show all posts
Monday, June 20, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Free Speech and Manners of Life and Death
This will be the first, and I sincerely hope the only, time I mention the Westboro Baptist Church on this blog. They are a despicable "church" group that travels around the Country protesting funerals of Armed Service Members who have been killed in the line of duty. Their message, as far as I understand it, is that these brave men and women have died because God is punishing our country for our tolerance of homosexual lifestyles. The logical, moral, and tactful gap in their argument is so enormously wide that I will not even bother to go into further discussion in regards to their 'message'. These folks, to me, are the scum of the earth. My primal reaction, if I would encounter these folks at the funeral of someone close to me, would be to take a ballbat to their knees and kick them a few more times for good measure. This emotional response is exactly why an impartial Judiciary is such a crucial part of our free country.
The Supreme Court today upheld the Free Speech rights of this extremely unpopular minority view. Did it hurt to see those bastards 'win' a victory in the Highest Court in the Land? Of course it did. As I mulled it over however, I came to a recognition that it was the right decision. The Courts are not there to protect popular people saying popular things, they don't need the help. The Courts are there to protect the rights of unpopular people who do not violate any laws. As much as I despise their point of view, the church protestors have been very careful not to violate any established laws while making their obnoxious and rancid statement at the worst possible time and place. The right to free speech supersedes good taste.
The importance of this point was really driven home by another event half way around the world in Pakistan, where Shabaz Bhatti, the Government Minister for Religious Minorities, and the only Christian in the Government was brazenly gunned down and murdered for his vocal opposition to the countries harsh blasphemy laws. Here was someone who willingly forfeited his life over a manner of speech. It is obvious from what happened to him that his message made him extremely unpopular with some in his homeland. But he was willing to take a stand and die for his deeply held convictions in the power of free speech. That we all could be so bold.
The Supreme Court today upheld the Free Speech rights of this extremely unpopular minority view. Did it hurt to see those bastards 'win' a victory in the Highest Court in the Land? Of course it did. As I mulled it over however, I came to a recognition that it was the right decision. The Courts are not there to protect popular people saying popular things, they don't need the help. The Courts are there to protect the rights of unpopular people who do not violate any laws. As much as I despise their point of view, the church protestors have been very careful not to violate any established laws while making their obnoxious and rancid statement at the worst possible time and place. The right to free speech supersedes good taste.
The importance of this point was really driven home by another event half way around the world in Pakistan, where Shabaz Bhatti, the Government Minister for Religious Minorities, and the only Christian in the Government was brazenly gunned down and murdered for his vocal opposition to the countries harsh blasphemy laws. Here was someone who willingly forfeited his life over a manner of speech. It is obvious from what happened to him that his message made him extremely unpopular with some in his homeland. But he was willing to take a stand and die for his deeply held convictions in the power of free speech. That we all could be so bold.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Supreme Court of the United States (Part 2)
If you look back at part 1 of this series on The Court, all I put up at first was article III of the U.S. Constitution. I did that because those few paragraphs set up the framework for the entire Federal Judicial system. If you look back on that rather brief and unassuming section of our country's founding document, you will notice that it is quite remarkable for what is missing from its instructions, as it is for what it lays out. There is no mention of the number of Justices that are to sit on the Court or what their qualifications are to be, nothing about how many cases they are to take on or how they are to come to their decisions. Most striking by its absence however is explicit authority for what has come to be known as THE most important function of the Court: its jurisdiction to review laws and determine whether they are or are not within the bounds of the Constitution.
This act of Judicial Review is absolutely vital to our concept of a system of "checks and balances" upon our Federal Government. And although it is implied and interpreted from the Supremacy clause in Article IV, it is not an explicit power granted unto the Court in Article III. Why is this seemingly crucial doctrine not included within the bedrock of the Federal Courts? The answer, I believe, lies within chasm that seperates our idealized national narrative of how our Country was formed and the practical realities and constraints of the "living and breathing" times that those who laid down the foundations for our Nation lived within.
There is a deep rooted mythology within the American pysche in regards to our Founding Fathers. They are our secular saints; a group of rag-tag rightously pious patriots who, uniquely in the annals of history, cast off the iron clad shackles of tyranny and unbearably cruel and intolerable oppression; to immediatley grant unto their Continent, and the World at large, a fully functional and perfected Union, that would unquestionably become the Shining Beacon on the Hill and lead the world into a new age of peace and prosperity. What is amazing is that worship and deitization of these founders, rather then being marginalized and reduced over the years, only seems to grow more polished and refined within each passing generation. It would be a grave misstatement to say that Americans do not know Their history. The emphasis must be placed however must be placed on the Their, not the 'history.' As explained in James Loewon's groundbreaking book "Lies My Teacher Told Me," the American history that is disseminated through our textbooks and schools is a white-washed melodrama of enduring progress meant to indoctrinate this secular mythology, not to raise levels of critical thinking or encourage civic engagement.
How does this mass misreading of history affect our concept of Judicial Review? It is because the Founding Fathers were not a monolithic rightous entity that this radical concept was not included directly within our Constitution. Although 5 of the 13 States had some form of Judicial Review or Veto within their State Constitutions in 1787, this was still a controversial idea at the time. It was not included for reasons having to do with political compromise of the times to ensure that all States ratified the novel Federal document. So we can see that even at the very foundations of our country's laws, there is an element of give and take between individual liberty, States rights, and Federal Powers.
Stay tuned for my next Supreme Court entry where I explore the way the Court obtained the power of review and its use of such power in the absolute worst decision in its History.
This act of Judicial Review is absolutely vital to our concept of a system of "checks and balances" upon our Federal Government. And although it is implied and interpreted from the Supremacy clause in Article IV, it is not an explicit power granted unto the Court in Article III. Why is this seemingly crucial doctrine not included within the bedrock of the Federal Courts? The answer, I believe, lies within chasm that seperates our idealized national narrative of how our Country was formed and the practical realities and constraints of the "living and breathing" times that those who laid down the foundations for our Nation lived within.
There is a deep rooted mythology within the American pysche in regards to our Founding Fathers. They are our secular saints; a group of rag-tag rightously pious patriots who, uniquely in the annals of history, cast off the iron clad shackles of tyranny and unbearably cruel and intolerable oppression; to immediatley grant unto their Continent, and the World at large, a fully functional and perfected Union, that would unquestionably become the Shining Beacon on the Hill and lead the world into a new age of peace and prosperity. What is amazing is that worship and deitization of these founders, rather then being marginalized and reduced over the years, only seems to grow more polished and refined within each passing generation. It would be a grave misstatement to say that Americans do not know Their history. The emphasis must be placed however must be placed on the Their, not the 'history.' As explained in James Loewon's groundbreaking book "Lies My Teacher Told Me," the American history that is disseminated through our textbooks and schools is a white-washed melodrama of enduring progress meant to indoctrinate this secular mythology, not to raise levels of critical thinking or encourage civic engagement.
How does this mass misreading of history affect our concept of Judicial Review? It is because the Founding Fathers were not a monolithic rightous entity that this radical concept was not included directly within our Constitution. Although 5 of the 13 States had some form of Judicial Review or Veto within their State Constitutions in 1787, this was still a controversial idea at the time. It was not included for reasons having to do with political compromise of the times to ensure that all States ratified the novel Federal document. So we can see that even at the very foundations of our country's laws, there is an element of give and take between individual liberty, States rights, and Federal Powers.
Stay tuned for my next Supreme Court entry where I explore the way the Court obtained the power of review and its use of such power in the absolute worst decision in its History.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Supreme Court of the United States (Part 1)
Article III of the United States constitution: Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, recieve for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Corut shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations, as the Congress shall make. The trial of all Crimes, except in the case of Impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trials shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed in any State, the trial shall be at such Place or Places as Congress may by law have directed. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, Giving them Aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)