It is so hard to prove. Unless you break into HR files in the middle of the night you have no evidence. And, the higher the position the more secretive the negotiations.

Now I am not recommending breaking into HR during the wee m orning hours. But there are more than one way to skin a cat. Where are the male employees vulnerable?

Here is the other side. When men approached fifty years old they are tucked in the back as viable candidates. Younger men get the position because they could be paid less. Men were scared to say anything because they didn’t want to be blackballed in their next job offer. Their kids were now in high school and college.

Beware of the capitalist! There are no ethics, morals, humanity and preservation in the premise of capitalism.

It’s just the way it is when the SCOTUS interprets a procedural rule when the intent is not clearly expressed by Congress.

When Congress is unclear on an issue of law, the SCOTUS can step in to interpret it using various methods to determine it’s intent.

When Congress doesn’t agree with that interpretation, they can go back and amend the law by expressing their intent – thus making the SCOTUS’s decision on the issue moot.

Like I said, the conservative court took advantages of a door in Title VII left open. Congress generally doesn’t express their intent on every single rule because it’s impracticable and sometimes its a political move.

But Congress has the ability to go back and slam the door shut when Congress believes the SCOTUS wrongly interpreted the procedural rule.

This goes on ALL the time and has for since 1787. Each branch steps on another, the latter can reclaim the power usurped in various ways unique to each branch.

The question now is …will Congress do something?

“In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the decision, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights. “Once again, the ball is in Congress’s court,” she said. Within hours, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, announced her intention to submit such a bill.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…..cotus.html

gobot @ 158

The truth is that this is the dance in our democracy.

In periods of progress, laws are passed or decision are handed down that seek to create equality or prevent further inequality.

In periods of conservatism, those laws are weakened by certain limitations of enforcement or burdens upon the oppressed. And even the courts join in this effort by enlarging protections for inequality or minimizing the effectiveness of laws by restraining the quality and quantity of claims created under progressive laws.

And the reverse is true when conservative law makers create conservative laws. The balance of the sum is a body of law that is both conflicting and confusing at times – but encourages participation in the democracy in order to sustain the entire balance of power.

Good law stands and bad law is overturned. Everything in between swings back in forth from period to period.

Sure, I can see that from the 50,000 foot level. But when you’re a single working mother struggling to make ends meet, wondering how you’re going to pay for daycare and put food in children’s stomachs tonight, the very last thing you want to know is that you’re buying the “swing of the pendulum” with the 20% differential between your pay and the man sitting next to you doing the same job. There are some things like protecting those that can least do it for themselves that government should do at all times, regardless of where the swing of democracy’s pendulum may be.

Rayne,

I understand you point. I wasn’t trying to soften what the SCOTUS has ruled. I was trying to express the point there is hope this decision will be overturned or congress will clearly express it’s intent regarding the issue so that the SCOTUS’s decision would be moot by clear expression of intent regarding the applicability of this procedural rule.

That’s the point. Congress was not clear on this specific issue, so the SCOTUS led by conservatives had the means to interpret a limitation on it’s application.

If Congress tommorrow passes a bill that speaks directly on this point, this decision is moot.

This has happened many times in Labor law and other areas when the SCOTUS interprets issues in law where Congress has not expressly stated it’s intent on a procedural rule. In the past, after becoming upset with the ruling, Congress has went back and clearly expressed it’s intent to render the SCOTUS’s decison moot.

Congress can amend law to clearly express it’s intent when they feel the SCOTUS got it wrong.

So there’s hope. This decision isn’t written in stone.

And I agree the government should protect etc at all times. But thats aspirational. Sometimes government unknowingly gets it wrong and sometimes intentionally. That’s reality.

Everyone has a right to pissed about this. No one, certainly not me, is implying you shouldn’t be pissed.

I was just saying we all have method of correcting this decision through Congress. Yes, that’s aspirational too. But thats all we’ve got. Only Congress can fix this.

No matter how “conservative” she is, can she really look at this court and this country and be proud of her decisions?