The right wing controlled US Supreme Court is on a roll today

[ElFenix]

On which of the two issues?

skimming it as it's very long

issues are different from the appellate court and supreme court level, the appellate majority apparently whittled down the back pay and prospective relief and then certifying the remainder, while the dissent would certify nothing and probably would have required a multitude of lawsuits to get plaintiffs much more similarly situated

 

[EagleKeeper]

On which of the two issues?

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Seems pretty clear cut as to what the 9th decided.

The cases have merit; not as a class action suit; the 9th let it go thru as a class action.

Which all those liberals on the Supreme Court refused.

 

[woolfe9999]

/facepalm. Complete statistics fail. How did that idiot manage to get on the scotus? Those stats mean nothing if you don't know what's causing them. Is it discriminatory policy or other factors?

Ginsburg was summarizing the plaintiffs' evidence and quoting directly from transcripts in the lower court. She makes no claim that the case is proven based on this evidence. There should be single hash quotes within the double hash quotes. The articles quoting her concurring opinion are misattributing these phrases to Ginsburg. Those are also not the only pieces of evidence introduced to show discrimination. It's a media soundbite from a lengthy opinion.

Here is just the one paragraph direct from the opinion:

Women fill 70 percent of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores but make up only “33 percent of management employees.” 222 F.R.D., at 146. “[T]he higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women.” Id., at 155. The plaintiffs' “largely uncontested descriptive statistics” also show that women working in the company's stores “are paid less than men in every region” and “that the salary gap widens over time even for men and women hired into the same jobs at the same time.” Ibid.

There is a reason why the plaintiffs' evidence is always summarized in this context but I'm about at the end of my tolerance for media misrepresentation and ATP&N boneheadedness on all matters legal.

 

[ElFenix]

these opinions are really long. my boss (who is old school, graduated 1973, does all his legal research from books) blames word processors.

first appellate decision (2-1 upholding district):
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/02/05/0416688.pdf

en banc opinion (157 pages :shocked: )
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/02/05/0416688.pdf

supreme court
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf

 

[Lemon law]

ElFenix that is a new one on me, blame word processors on declining court stupidity.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson had it right, periodically we must water the tree of liberty, by hanging SCOTUS judges from lamp posts.

And I can't think of a better place to start than activist judges straight out of George Orwell, in Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

 

[sactoking]

ElFenix that is a new one on me, blame word processors on declining court stupidity.

Maybe Thomas Jefferson had it right, periodically we must water the tree of liberty, by hanging SCOTUS judges from lamp posts.

And I can't think of a better place to start than activist judges straight out of George Orwell, in Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

He wasn't blaming word processors for "declining...stupidity" as you called it. He was just observing that the legal wording is prohibitively verbose and that that might be caused by word processors as lengthy writing by hand or typewriter both present unique challenges not present with word processors.

But nice job of missing the point entirely for a chance to preach off-topic anyway.