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

[Craig234]

Two things to say.

1. Another 5-4 decision, once we get rid of one of the rat fink right winger at SCOTUS, SCOTUS will likely spend close to a decade reversing itself on various rulings.

IF their replacement is not another Federalist Society radical right-wing type.

Which is one of the most important reasons we need to elect an Obama over a Bush.

I think it's going to take more than a decade to fix them, though, and a lot might not get fixed. And they're not done yet. Imagine if we'd had a McCain appointing more Scalias.

What a disaster as 5-4 became 6-3 and 7-2 and 8-1. Obama has appointed 'centrists'. We'd have done better with liberals, but they're a lot better than more on the radical right.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don't promote me, I sue you. That's an awesome way to destroy a company.

 

[Craig234]

Don't promote me, I sue you. That's an awesome way to destroy a company.

So, you support the Wal-Mart managers raping female employees constantly.

Hey, this lie about the issue straw man approach is fun!

 

[Macamus Prime]

Don't unionize. Don't expect the government to help you in anything.

You're on your own America. It's divide and conquor, by our government.

Hey, it's a good thing we're still allowed to buy guns. We'll use the good ol'boy approach to "gettin 'er done".

 

[ichy]

What a disaster as 5-4 became 6-3 and 7-2 and 8-1. Obama has appointed 'centrists'. We'd have done better with liberals, but they're a lot better than more on the radical right.

If you honestly believe that Obama's two SCOTUS nominees aren't liberals then you're even more of a partisan hack than I thought.

 

[her209]

There is no doubt that women on average are making less than their male counterparts. That needs to be fixed. But the ENTIRE Supreme Court (not just the right wing side) made the correct decision.

You have to be an utter retard to think this was a good case to start with. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Next time, the lawyers should put a better case together as Craig has suggested.

The lawyers were probably licking their chops when they filed the class action lawsuit because they saw millions in lawyer fees.

 

[Infohawk]

The ideal class action is something like a retail store overcharging all customers on sales tax in a given state. Everyone in the class is in the same EXACT position. Employment relationships are much more complicated.

And at the end of the day I doubt Walmart actually has any official policies that openly screw women. They're smart enough not to expose themselves like that and I will never believe that all the men in the company could get away with some conspiracy to screw over women. People just aren't that smart or secretive.

 

[xj0hnx]

If you honestly believe that Obama's two SCOTUS nominees aren't liberals then you're even more of a partisan hack than I thought.

Oh yes he is.

 

[Craig234]

If you honestly believe that Obama's two SCOTUS nominees aren't liberals then you're even more of a partisan hack than I thought.

You sound like just the sort of poster who I like to have on the other side, someone who by being an opponent strengthens your side. And ignorant.

There is one tiny thing in your favor - the word 'liberal' has been corrupted and distorted, by people who simply have to divide things into 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

Our media today simply *cannot* call the radical right on the court what they are; and the centrist by simply not being with the radical right, are called 'liberals', appointed by R's.

It's a little like watching the march of the Republican party who has marched to the right, purging itself of anyone else, so that Reagan was the 'real conservative', and couldn't come close to passing later Republicans' litmus tests; then George W. Bush was the 'real conservative' - and as I predicted in 2000, the Republicans then turned on him as 'not a real conservative'. Now it's someone like Michelle Bachman. Who might be a 'liberal' in a bit.

 

[Schadenfroh]

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

The justices unanimously ruled

All of the members of The Supreme Court are right-wingers? What do you guys consider center-left politics?

 

[Craig234]

Here's a news article on the story.

It appears that this suit asked for back pay for the women and all the justices agreed that was not allowed.

The difference was whether the suit could proceed anyway, where it appears the radical right-wing 4 simply said 'no' ignoring the evidence of systemic discrimination, and the moderate 4 justices said 'yes, it can proceed as a suit against Wal-Mart to address the discrimination, but not for damages'.

This wasn't even deciding the suit, but just allowing it to be heard.

Ginsburg said:

"Women fill 70 per cent of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores, but make up only 33 per cent of the management employees," she wrote. "The higher one looks in the organization, the lower the percentage of women."

It's common and appropriate to use statistics as one measure of discrimination in a large group, along with others. They had quite a bit more evidence.

I'd have to look more at Scalia's decision, but at first glance this appears to have been the Scalia side's simply 'picking a winner' based on ideology opposing worker rights.

Supreme Court Sides with Wal-Mart in Sex Discrimination Class Action
David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a huge class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that contended the retail giant had systematically discriminated against 1.5 million of its female workers.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court said the suit could not go forward as a class-action claim because the plaintiffs could not show Wal-Mart had a common policy of discriminating against women. Instead, the company allowed individual store managers to decide on pay levels and promotions, the justices said.

The ruling is not only a victory for Wal-Mart, but is also likely to shield large employers from similar claims that rely on statistics that may suggest bias based on the race or gender of employees. Had civil rights lawyers succeeded in the case, they had hoped to bring other suits against large employers who allegedly relegate women or minorities to lower-paying jobs.

"In a company of Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction," said Justice Antonin Scalia. Because class actions are suitable for resolving disputes that turn on a common issue, this lawsuit cannot go forward, Scalia said.

While the court's liberals disagreed on this point, they agreed with Scalia that the class-action claim was flawed because it sought individual awards of back pay for the women. All nine justices said this class-action suit could not seek monetary damages for the women workers.

Scalia's opinion strongly suggested that such claims cannot proceed as a single class-action suit unless the plaintiffs can point to a company policy of discriminating against certain employees.

In a partial dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said there was enough evidence of systematic sex discrimination to allow the suit to proceed, though not for damages. "Women fill 70 per cent of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores, but make up only 33 per cent of the management employees," she wrote. "The higher one looks in the organization, the lower the percentage of women."

Giving managers a free hand to make pay decisions could lead to discrimination, she added. "Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to the biases of which they are unaware," she said. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in saying the suit should have been allowed to proceed, even if it would not likely lead to money damages for individual employees.

 

[Craig234]

All of the members of The Supreme Court are right-wingers? What do you guys consider center-left politics?

So, you didn't read the posts.

Even the radical right-wing judges and the moderates have areas in law they can agree on;
there are quite a few unanimous decisions on less controversial issues.

They were unanimous on ONE PART of the case - that the lawsuit could not get damages for the workers. You appear not understand the 5-4 ruling on the rest of the case.

There aren't really any 'left-wing' judges, but four are not 'right-wing', but moderates.

 

[cubby1223]

If you honestly believe that Obama's two SCOTUS nominees aren't liberals then you're even more of a partisan hack than I thought.

He has drifted so far to the left he now believes even his own posts are "extreme right"




My little take on this situation...

-On one hand women should be treated equally as men.
-On another hand, there is a practicality to this situation where a lawsuit of this magnitude is too expensive, too complicated, I would say impossible to conduct the trial.

Guess that makes me "extreme right" because I believe fairness in the process is just as important as fairness in the end results?

 

[cubby1223]

Giving managers a free hand to make pay decisions could lead to discrimination, she added. "Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to the biases of which they are unaware," she said. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Ginsburg in saying the suit should have been allowed to proceed, even if it would not likely lead to money damages for individual employees.

See, to me this sounds like the liberals on the court want to legislate free will.

Again there are always multiple sides to everything

On one hand quotas push equality, which is good.
On the other hand, as individuals we are all imperfect creatures, and quotas actually do grow resentment between groups, which is bad.

 

[PokerGuy]

"Women fill 70 per cent of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores, but make up only 33 per cent of the management employees," she wrote. "The higher one looks in the organization, the lower the percentage of women."

/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?

 

[JSt0rm]

this makes sense. Break it up into small groups and go again.

 

[EagleKeeper]

IF their replacement is not another Federalist Society radical right-wing type.

Which is one of the most important reasons we need to elect an Obama over a Bush.

I think it's going to take more than a decade to fix them, though, and a lot might not get fixed. And they're not done yet. Imagine if we'd had a McCain appointing more Scalias.

What a disaster as 5-4 became 6-3 and 7-2 and 8-1. Obama has appointed 'centrists'. We'd have done better with liberals, but they're a lot better than more on the radical right.

Important to you so your views will be forced upon others.

You ideas are not always correct and at times correct for the incorrect reason.

But it is always the other guys fault; be it Federal or State issues.

 

[Craig234]

Important to you so you views will be forced upon others.

You ideas are not always correct and at times correct for the incorrect reason.

But it is always the other guys fault; be it Federal or State issues.

What the hell are you talking/lying about? Usually, right-wing nuttiness can at least be understood enough to say why it's such crap, you don't even do that.

 

[Infohawk]

What the hell are you talking/lying about? Usually, right-wing nuttiness can at least be understood enough to say why it's such crap, you don't even do that.

He's a lot easier to understand than you are. He's saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day. You're like the broken clock.

 

[Craig234]

this makes sense. Break it up into small groups and go again.

It appears we're not talking 'small groups' as much as 'individual lawsuits'.

Class action can be essential to justice in some cases.

As an article said, this ruling greatly reduces the pressure on Wal-Mart to settle - if they discriminate against 100,000 women, that's 100,000 needing to file individual cases, each one with such little money involved that no lawyer is going to touch the case generally - it's a huge win for Wal-Mart in allowing them to avoid almost any accountability for discrimination.

To put it simply, it seems to come down in part to:

Wal-Mart has over 600,000 US employees; women make up 70% of the lowest positions, 33% of the management positions, and fewer of the more senior positions.

If you compare this to other comparable companies and Wal-Mart has *far* worse equality for women that statistics suggests strongly encourages discrimination as a culture:

Right-wing view: Show me the company written policy that says to discriminate against women, or there's no pattern, just individual cases.

Moderate view: This and the other evidence support the case being heard in court and a jury determining whether there is widespread discrimination.

Simplified, but that seems a big part of the issue.

 

[PokerGuy]

It appears we're not talking 'small groups' as much as 'individual lawsuits'.

Wrong as usual. Craig, do you ever stop to think what it would be like to actually not be wrong for once? Do you read your drivel sometimes and think "wow, can't believe I write that garbage!"? You should.

The court didn't say you can't have class action suits, they just said you can't lump every employee into one giant bucket regardless of their position and job, because the cases are potentially very different. The plaintiffs can create groups of similar cases and file suit and gain class action status.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Wrong as usual. Craig, do you ever stop to think what it would be like to actually not be wrong for once? Do you read your drivel sometimes and think "wow, can't believe I write that garbage!"? You should.

The court didn't say you can't have class action suits, they just said you can't lump every employee into one giant bucket regardless of their position and job, because the cases are potentially very different. The plaintiffs can create groups of similar cases and file suit and gain class action status.

One person's garbage is another's masterpiece:\

 

[ElFenix]

9th circuit decision was 6-5.

 

[BoberFett]

Which is one of the most important reasons we need to elect an Obama over a Bush.

Yeah, clearly the country did a 180 with Obama leading us to greatness...

 

[Craig234]

9th circuit decision was 6-5.

On which of the two issues?