LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
May 26, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     gay marriage     barack obama     ndaa     robert scheer     chris hedges
Most Read

TED: 'A Money-Soaked Orgy of Self-Congratulatory Futurism'

Truthdiggers of the Week: 400,000 Canadians Launching the ‘Maple Spring’

Russia and Exxon Mobil Sign Arctic Oil Deal

I Can't Hear Myself Think

A Rare Admission That Money Trumps Everything Else

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Why Bain Questions Matter
OSHA Struggles When Tower Climbers Die

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Better Than We Found It
The Good-Natured Dictator

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Loot

Loot

By Sharon Waxman
$19.80

At Large

At Large

By Ellen Goodman

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

SCOTUS Split on Wal-Mart Suit

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Mar 30, 2011
supreme court
Flickr / dbking

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

Bloomberg:

A gender gap emerged at the U.S. Supreme Court as the court’s three female justices tussled with their male colleagues over a nationwide discrimination suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT)

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all voiced at least qualified support yesterday for the class-action suit, which claims women across the country were victimized by Wal-Mart’s practice of letting local managers make subjective decisions about pay and promotions. The dispute marks the first gender-bias case the court has considered with three women on the bench.

Read more

 

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

By taikan, March 31, 2011 at 11:51 am 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 this
zonth_zonth's avatar

By zonth_zonth, March 31, 2011 at 9:02 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 this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 31, 2011 at 8:36 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 this

By SarcastiCanuck, March 31, 2011 at 8:14 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 this
MK Ultra's avatar

By MK Ultra, March 31, 2011 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Have no fears, Wal Mart has this one.  Our honorable Corporate Supreme Court is loyal to its masters.

Report this

By ardee, March 31, 2011 at 6:29 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
Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.