|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 SCOTUS Split on Wal-Mart SuitPosted on Mar 30, 2011
Is the law of our land gender-neutral? And might the gender of the justices handling a case—as in the case of the gargantuan and complex sexual discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart under consideration at the U.S. Supreme Court—impact important legal decisions? These are questions many people might have hunches about but could find hard to prove, which sounds a lot like what Team SCOTUS is grappling with in deliberating about the main point of the Wal-Mart suit. As The Associated Press reported Wednesday, some justices see the problem to be less about proving that discrimination against female employees occurred on a large scale and more about the scale issue itself. However, as Bloomberg noted after Tuesday’s action at the Supreme Court, a pattern seemed to emerge along gendered lines within the lineup of justices—coincidence? —KA
Advertisement TAGS:
|
Guantanamo Prisoner’s Case Demonstrates Unfairness of Military Commissions
 . '/' . substr('9780062003218',-6,3) . '/' . '9780062003218' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By taikan, March 31, 2011 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
Although it is easy to mischaracterize this as a gender-based split on the Supreme Court, in reality it is the same ideological split that the Court has had for years. All four Justices who seemed to be supporting the plaintiffs’ argument that the case should be allowed to go forward as a class action are judicial moderates. Four of the five Justices who expressed skepticism about the case are right-wing judicial activists. The fifth, Justice Kennedy, tends to be more of conservative (rather than a right-wing activist) judge, but as a Reagan appointee should not be anticipated to view with favor any class action suit, regardless of subject matter.
Report thisBy zonth_zonth, March 31, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
These same cretins who ascribed individual status to Walmart. Does walmart contemplate the corporate condition much like humans do their condition?
Report thisBy Napolean DoneHisPart, March 31, 2011 at 9:36 am Link to this comment
Golden Rule back in force:
He who has the gold makes the rules..
In this case, the golden calf.
Report thisBy SarcastiCanuck, March 31, 2011 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hmmmm,three external wars going and now a gender war in the Supreme Court.Whats next,a knife fight between Girl Guides and Cub Scouts?
Report thisBy MK Ultra, March 31, 2011 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
Have no fears, Wal Mart has this one. Our honorable Corporate Supreme Court is loyal to its masters.
Report thisBy ardee, March 31, 2011 at 7:29 am Link to this comment
The Supreme Court, dragging us back to the 1800’s.
It seems that the math suggests strongly that inequities in Wal-Mart’s pay scales fall strongly along gender based lines. This company destroys neighborhoods, harms communities with its refusal to provide adequate health care and its impacting quite negatively local business. What a great company!
The far right speaks often about “activist judges” yet those appointed by the right seem the most willing to subvert law.
Report this