-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/37325/new-haven-firefighters-the-divide-remains/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Here's how Washington Monthly sums up the issue with regard to Sotomayor:
All "philosophies," of course, are not all equally, morally or otherwise.
Proper restraint against overreach and respect for law and rule of law is superior as well as proper; substituting the views, desires, and whims of judges who are well to the left of the public and the will to which law is ordinarily intended and expected to satisfy is illegimate as well as morally and otherwise inferior and defective.
At least with Sotomayor, there's less of an illegitimate-activist threat than there could have been.
Given that comment, it has to really get your goat that Obama is sustaining and continuing almost every single onE of the things you have railed against Bush about for the past few years here.
I like how Glenn Reynolds puts it. Hope and Change? More like Hope and Same!
HA HA HA HA!
You can make up whatever you want to say, Green Dreams, but the facts about judicial activism stand.
You're right about the judicial activism. Like when your guys decided that equal pay for women could only be charged when the FIRST instance occurred, not the succeeding 20 years of inequality. That's activism old white men can believe in.
Hard to believe, but these rulings are supposed to be determined by the law, but the charge of activism is always made by the side who loses.
equal pay for women could only be charged when the FIRST instance occurred, not the succeeding 20 years of inequality
That is not what they ruled at all, and I am sure you know that, but felt that lying about or misrepresenting what they did actually rule mad it easier to make your point.
The bottom-line point on that ruling was that it was a poorly written law, and it is not the Supreme Court's job to re-write poorly written law - it is Congress' job. And they did after that ruling. For once.
I wish they would do that more often, rather than looking to SCOTUS to cover their asses by making new law or fixing their errors, frankly. And that criticism is definitely pointed at both Democrats and Republicans.
I beg to differ with your take. The decision hinged upon the idea that past discrimination is inadmissible if there was no "present" act within the allotted time period. In quoting a past case,
"We agreed with Evans that the airline’s “seniority sys-tem [did] indeed have a continuing impact on her pay and fringe benefits,” id., at 558, but we noted that “the critical question [was] whether any present violation exist[ed].” Ibid. (emphasis in original). We concluded that the continuing effects of the precharging period discrimination did not make out a present violation."
So, past discrimination, in Lilly's case unequal pay, could not be counted toward a present act of discrimination even though every paycheck underscored that unequal pay.
So, if I sell you a fraudulent insurance policy where you make monthly payments, you can't be charged for fraud because the origination of that policy falls outside the statue of limitations? Cool, I've got some shoreline real estate I'd like to sell you.
Ah, but you conveniently ignore the that the past act occurred prior to the enactment of the law, which had been written with no grandfather clause (the fatal flaw), and continuing results of a prior action do not count, in legal terms, as new incidents. Had they again, after the enactment of the law, performed another separate, distinct act of pay discrimination, that certainly WOULD have counted.
So, your example of the insurance, as it always seems to be for Leftists that do not get their way in court, is simply not a relevant example. It is just another lying misstatement of the initial conditions and facts in evidence so you can feel superior in your flawed reasoning.
Again, my position is the difference between rulings based on the law vs. the 'what makes your tummy feel yummy' theory of jurisprudence. I prefer the former. If it leads to unacceptable consequences, change the law. As was done. As I said.
As always, with love and respect, AR
:)
Hypothetical
I contract with you in 1960 to sell you LSD on a monthly basis. At the time of the contract's start, LSD is a legal drug. I continue to sell you the drug to feed your monthly habit until the present day. I take it by your logic that because it was a legal act at the beginning of the contracting period, no unlawful act is committed after the drug is outlawed.
SCOTUS was quite clear it was the language of the law itself that forced their hand, not some hatred of women as you seem to want to fantasize about, and given your apparent memory problems, I will again point out that Congress then indeed changed the law to correct their own poor wording.
I am sorry you feel compelled to throw bogus strawman after bogus strawman at me, especially given i have the language of the SCOTUS ruling to back me up, but the plain fact is it was a poorly written law, SCOTUS made that abundantly clear, and then it got corrected.
I really fail to see how that is so evil. The court did its job, Congress theirs. The only objection seems to come from those that insist SCOTUS should act as an extension of Congress.
And when you find it, explain to me how this affects drug contracts, but not illegal employment contracts.
Thanks barrister
21 USC Sec. 841, paragraph a, articles 1 and 2:
(a) Unlawful acts
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally -
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.
The rest of the subchapter deals with the penalties and allowable exceptions, and prior contracts is not one of the allowed exceptions.
Go do your own research now:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html
Yes ace, I know the following is for minimum wage, however, as (d) below states,
No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate.....
Pre-existing contracts are exempted where?"
Title 29 Capt 8 § 206
(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to
Again, you just seem to want to spend time whining over and over again that you didn't like the effect of the law as it was written, and bad, bad SCOTUS for not just changing the law to meet your whims.
Obviously, you are never going to get over it (you probably still haven't gotten over Bush v. Gore, I would bet), so, no more arguing with a tree for me today. I do have more important things to do than to try and educate a rock.
See you on another thread, I am sure.
Drop your negative baggage. And I'm real sorry you feel so sure you know what I think.
I thought I was having a conversation, obviously, not.
:)
The (d) section I last sent you makes no attempt to over write previous contracts, yet you can't pay someone less than minimum wage after its passage. No discrimination now means every subsequent paycheck.
That's not what SCOTUS ruled.
You are mixing different wage laws, which never really works. But would you at least care to share a link, as I did?
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode2...
please show me how " Every employer shall pay to each of his employees" does not constitute citable evidence that (d) discrimination based on sex, does not apply to lilly. Just sayin' that sexual bias does not only refer to minimum wage workers here as how could you pay a female worker less if your men get paid the minimum; thus, it fits every worker.
May not be good lawyering, but its logically consistant.
twit