In case you’ve somehow missed it, the Roberts Court has been gutting civil rights laws in a systematic effort to overturn years of work on equality and the precedents designed to protect less powerful Americans from the whims of the powerful. Via NYTimes:
One of the most troubling rulings was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant who was paid less than her male colleagues after she was given smaller raises over several years. The court’s conservative majority ruled that Ms. Ledbetter had not met the 180-day deadline to file her complaint. It insisted that the 180 days ran from the day the company had made the original decision to give her a smaller raise than the men.
The ruling made no sense, since Ms. Ledbetter was being discriminated against when she made her complaint. As a practical matter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a strongly worded dissent, it would have been exceptionally difficult for Ms. Ledbetter to complain when she was first given a lower raise than the male supervisors because Goodyear, like many employers, kept salaries and raises confidential.
The Fair Pay Restoration Act, one of Senator Kennedy’s bills, would undo the injustice of the Ledbetter decision by establishing that the 180-day deadline runs from when a worker receives the unequal pay, not when the employer decided to discriminate. It would make clear that each discriminatory paycheck restarts the clock.
Mr. Kennedy’s other bill, the Civil Rights Act of 2008, would reverse more bad decisions. One of these is a 2001 ruling that says that people who are discriminated against in programs using federal funds can sue only for intentional discrimination, not for actions that have a discriminatory effect. This decision dramatically scaled back protections against discrimination of all kinds.
More background on the Ledbetter case and Justice Ginsburg’s stinging dissent to the 5-4 decision here, and analysis of its longer-term impact on gender discrimination laws here. And, at a time when the civil rights division of the Department of Justice has been used to launder voter roll purging schemes and other politicized agendas that use the power of the state against less powerful minorities, the entire system of laws and protections envisioned by civil rights activists has been undercut in the courts.
All of this has roots in the political decisions that we make. And, come Monday, we’ll discuss civil rights laws, the courts, the Congress, and what all of us can do in the voting booth and beyond. Hope you will join us for the next First Monday…
(YouTube is a live Marvin Gaye performance from 1973, featuring James Jamerson on bass. Great stuff…)
Related posts:
- Rush Limbaugh: Sotomayor is a Threat to Republicans’ Civil Rights
- Von Spakovsky Accuses Obama Civil Rights Team of “Nakedly Political” Acts; NYT Fails to Note HvS’s Own Partisan Work
- SCOTUS: Citzens United to be Re-Argued Today; Campaign Finance, Speech Rights Hang in Balance
- The SEC Civil Suit Against Countrywide’s Mozilo: Why You Need to Know About “Parallel Proceedings”
- On Constitution Day, Celebrate the Rights of People (Not Corporations)
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
“What’s Goin’ ON!” Zed!
Teddy? Traitor to the American Working Class, minorities and women…someone’s got bad information, I think! Teddy IS an American Patriot!
All of us are Lilly Ledbetter.
This is why we need a woman in the White House for more reasons than one.
Good point.
Hiya, Christy, and all!
This shit sucks, but at least it’s Friday.
How much of adverse SCOTUS decisions can be offset by legislation if we get the reight D congress? (Notice I said the right D congress.)
Only SCOTUS interpretations of the law can be changed by Congress, as the legislature makes the law. Constitutional interpretations are binding unless and until a later SCOTUS overrules the decision, or a Constitutional amendment alters the Constitution.
11 months, 18 days…
But…
A 5 -4 decision? It’s going to be that way for decades.
The Roberts Court, the real Bush Legacy.
But Congress can make new laws.
And this is why all those whiners who say they want to stay home if their candidate doesn’t get the Democratic nomination need to actually contribute to making sure the eventual nominee does get elected.
Someone once said “Elections have consequences.”
i think im getting depressed….need cookies and ice cream
Got any to share?
Who is the oldest conservative & might he retire/die during the next prez term?
That’s what I was talking about when I said “SCOTUS interpretations of the law can be changed by Congress”.
The ruling made no sense, since Ms. Ledbetter was being discriminated against when she made her complaint. As a practical matter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a strongly worded dissent, it would have been exceptionally difficult for Ms. Ledbetter to complain when she was first given a lower raise than the male supervisors because Goodyear, like many employers, kept salaries and raises confidential.
————-
we are so fukked
When that Ledbetter ruling came down, I was outraged. The woman didn’t know, and had no means of knowing that she was being paid differently than the men until after the deadline. She found out by accident. The clock should have started either when she first learned of the discrimination, or restarted each time they short paid her.
I read “can” as “can’t”. Sorry.
yes ,coming to you through the intertubes,molasses cookies,graham cracker icecream…take all you want
http://images.google.com/imgre…..%26hl%3Den
ohhhh i’ll make a special effort to be on the lake!! we need more tutoring at least in my case on this important issue….
The point was not to be fair. The point was to make sure there’d be no more pay discrimination lawsuit. It’s legislating thru the courts. Be nice if the Ds would point this out.
Yummy. Thank you so much.
man
oh
man
now why the HELL can’t roberts be impeached and have it initiated by the next president?
i’m on and off on the lake today…. grand kids are here so must give them attention lol and they dont wanna hear nothing !!
Legislating from the bench. Is that anything like ‘activist judges’? /s
Stevens is the oldest (April 20, 1920), and one of the most liberal, then Ginsburg (1933), another liberal, then Breyer (1938), Souter (1939), Kennedy and Scalia (1938), Thomas (1948), and Roberts (1955).
The cons are the youngest.
Decades.
im just looking for some silver lining in these black clouds….anybody??
Roberts must be taking very strong neds for his brain problems
We are flattered that you are torn between us & your grandkids. Have fun with them.
11 months, 18 days, and it could all if we get more and enough better Democrats. Alito and Roberts could be impeached (think Attorney General Edwards).
I can dream, can’t i?
meds……………..gaw
more and better Democrats -for Hope
I would like a new and better Democratic Congress to impeach convict and remove three or four people from the Supreme Court. I guess it won’t happen. But think about it -is it acceptable for the law of the land to be determined by reasoning that grossly violates logic and common sense? What if they started handing down decisions that assumed 1 + 1 = 0? And when people objected to that, the justices said that they were using another system of arithmetic where that relationship held.
Jefferson said that the nations laws smust be based on clear reasoning that everyone could understand. Certain members of the Supreme court have decided to habitually depart from that form of reasoning, and always to the benefit of their ideological party. There reasoning flunks basic tests of logic and common sense and it is used for corrupt purposes. Get rid of them.
i would like him overseeing healthcare,and the insurance thieves
So we get to replace the libruls with liberuls, anyhow. Hope H or O have learned from the Rs to get younguns on the court. (The biggest R objection to Miers was she was too old.)
Justice Fitzgerald.
IANAL but I’d guess that the current Supremes have done nothing close to impeachable offenses.
Scalia and Kennedy are both 71. Antonin Scalia born March 11, 1936. Anthony Kennedy born July 23, 1936. John Paul Stevens aged 87 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg aged 74 are the oldest Justices, and I’ve heard both are likely to retire before the above. Stephen Breyer age 69 and David Souter age 68 are just a little younger than Scalia and Kennedy. Then comes decades of the Young Conservatives- Clarence Thomas age 59, Samuel Alito age 57 and Chief Justice John Roberts age 53.
In other words, unless a Democratic President holds office for two terms (or a set of Democratic Presidents occurs) the Conservatives will likely expand to absolutely control the Court.
gram promised to make cookies with them so off i go til later i hope…. byeee for now fellow pups ;o}
He’s a R. Don’t take chances.
So let’s get 60 Ds in the Senate, a real D majority leader, ram thru a really young, obnoxious, but legally unassailable Supreme nomination that’ll make some of the older Rs wish they were dead, so they’ll retire.
I know, as unlikely as impeachment.
can the next president appoint a new chief justice and demote Roberts? or do we have to wait until he retires in some fashion?
I don’t think there is any evidence of impeachable offenses amongst any of them…maybe something about Scalia’s daughter? Doubtful. But that’s a Congressional issue, not something that the AG decides (though if s/he were to discover bribery or other acts of judicial malfeasance it would be up to Congress to take action).
Well with a big enough Dem majority I could see Roberts and Alito being impeached if the crimes of the Bush administration are prosecuted. They both lied to the Senate during their confirmations.
I think one of the big questions confronting the next administration (assuming it’s a Democrat) will be, “Will the crimes of the Bush administration be prosecuted?
As much as I hate to say it, I don’t hold out much hope. It’s going to be all bi-partisanship, healing and kumbaya I’m afraid…
..hence, decades.
Unless you count perjury during their confirmation hearings when they flat out lied about “respect for stare decisis”
I believe Souter and Stevens were both Rs as well. A Justice Fitzgerald would at least rule according to the law as written.
I, unfortunately, agree with you. Especially with Obama, but I don’t think Hillary would be much more aggressive. They would both try to make their mark on positive accomplishments rather than cleaning up the messes of the “past.” By ignoring the latter, though, they create a morale hazard that makes it irresitible for the next R administration to be even worse than the current one.
They could probably talk their way out of that one.
OK digg mates, digg this
get the word out on FDLs First Monday series and remind everyone what happened to Lilly Ledbetter.
Are you at all hinting that he could/should have reveled more in Plamegate.
Then comes decades of the Young Conservatives- Clarence Thomas age 59, Samuel Alito age 57 and Chief Justice John Roberts age 53
——————
this should never have been able to happen!
Boy you hit that one on the head. One of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in is because Nixon was pardoned and the Republican crimes and the Republican criminals of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were never stamped out.
On the topic of impeachment, I am a Hamiltonian, and Hamilton said that impeachment was intended to remedy political crimes. So I guess I am a radical on this point. The current situation has highlighted a weakness in our system of government, which is its inflexibility between elections, when one (or I guess now, two) branches go haywire. Impeachment can remedy that. I disagree with many people who seem to think, from various political perspectives and with various degrees of good faith, that the impeachment of Clinton showed that impeachment was extreme or somehow something to be afraid of.
The GOP tried to impeach Clinton for reasons inside their dinky little heads that are unknown to most of us, though we do have suspicions that their arguments were in bad faith. Just because in some sense that was a ‘bad’ imnpeachemnt, and public viewed it as such, that does not mean we should shy away from impeachment when we have good arguments, that can be made in good faith.
he doesn’t have brain problems, he’s been bread from birth to be on the supreme court, he is a federalist and his very purpose is to bring back male superiority, corporate power over individual rights and a robber baron economoy
it’s what he’s there for, it’s in his blood
Ding. Ding. ding. Ding. Ding. I’ve been saying that for quite awhile. They will never learn.
Perhaps more than any other position there is almost a vacuum about what role the Chief Justice plays and no mention at at about the appointment in the Constitution.The post is only cited once…in reference to the CJ presiding at an impeachment trial of a President. Tradition (but not the Constitution) holds that the CJ swears in the President at the inaugeration (but even that hasn’t always occurred).
The CJ’s role is mainly through accessory acts of Congress and traditions of appointments by the President. For example, the CJ sits on the Board of the Smithsonian.
There has never been a CJ REMOVED by a President, nor has any been impeached and removed. Only one CJ nominee has ever been rejected by Congress (Rutledge) and only one has actually turned down the position, although acted in a temporary capacity for a short time. Both those were under George Washington, who seemed to have a lot of problems with his initial Supreme Court…as did James Madison. It would definitely raise eyebrows to demote Roberts and go against two centuries of tradition.
Since talking is what got them to this point, they might want to be v-e-r-y careful about trying to BS their way through this one (and BS is what it would be – “This is what you stated during your confirmation hearings and these are your specific votes contrary to your statements – which is it?”)
I try hard not to go there. I was disappointed that not more was uncovered in Plamegate. I try to take Fitz at his word that he was blocked by their obstruction. I have lingering doubts, though.
No, I object to anyone from the other party getting to positions of importance in the next D administration. There is no need for it, and as I said, why take chances. There are plenty of talented young Ds.
The only way this will ever end is if the criminal are held to account and made to pay for their crimes.
It worked for Germany.
Abe Fortas was an Associate Justice and nominated by LBJ to replace Earl Warren but he withdraw from consideration when it became fairly obvious he would be rejected due to corruption. The office then stayed vacant until Nixon appointed Warren Burger.
i wonder if the LIBERAL media will mention this?
John was gone. I looked around, and he was making a beeline for this very attractive blond woman.
”He spent the whole party talking to her, and he kept avoiding me when I approached,” Mr. Lakeland said. After the reception, Mr. McCain and the young woman, Cindy Hensley, went out to dinner, and the romance blossomed….
Over the next six months, Mr. McCain pursued Miss Hensley aggressively, flying around the country to see her, and he began to push to end his marriage. Friends say that Carol McCain was in shock.
Late that year, the McCains finally separated, and Mrs. McCain accepted a divorce the next February. Mr. McCain promptly married Miss Hensley, his present wife.
BTW Because of the utter lack of specificity in the Constitution about the Chief Justice, Congress could legitimately act to constrain the powers and role of that office. One could, perhaps, make it a rotating position, rather than a perpetual one.
Anyone who has been willing to continue publicly associating himself (or herself) with the Republican Party after what has gone on the last 15 years is very suspect.
I don’t know about Hamilton’s arguement.
I do think Clinton’s impeachment should be of very little consideration. If the official/judge has committed clearly impeachable offences, s/he should be impeached. The fact that it was done badly once does not excuse not doing it rightly the next time. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Or move to South America. Years ago, I visited Bariloche Argentina…those old Nazi’s were living a good life.
he has brain electrical problems that cause epileptic attacks (seizures)
I agree. But it’s not going to happen.
Interesting. Wikipedia has that Earl Warren stayed in office until Warren Burger took his position upon retirement…and that there was no period of vacancy.
I may be mistaken on the vacancy but I do know that Earl Warren was retiring and LBJ was nominating Fortas as his replacement before the corruption came to light.
If there is a cite that contradicts the Wiki entry a note should be putt on the Discussion page.
Probably too far in the past to make headlines.
I do recall LBJ wanting Fortas, so perhaps Earl Warren delayed his retirement until a new nomination. Odd that LBJ never got around to making a second nomination and waited until F**khead Nixon could have the opportunity.
I thought LBJ was supposed to be wicked smart?
He wasn’t given a choice – you can go check wiki on Abe Fortas and it explains the whole deal.
he wenht for the BIG money,and the young broad,but i bet it was really the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that enthralled him…he went to work for her dad IMMEDIATELY!!!
Dmos roll over again and give the King everything he wants.
I do want thank the few who held out for the people.
Dodd for Senate Whip, please.
Oh, I hope I’m wrong.
I’m not a lawyer. I wouldn’t agree with a bogus impeachment even if it were against Scalia for his awful election 2000 decision. So, if some one who knows constitutional law can explain how some of these decisions can pass some legal smell, or laugh, or whatever, test, I would not advocate impeachment.
But I have to admit that I do believe theuse of egregiously bad and obviously tortured and inscrutable reasoning and bad faith logic to achieve preferred political and social outcomes is corrupt and should be an impeachable offense for a Supreme Court Justice. I think Jeffersons dictum on how law sould be interpreted is very important for a democracy.
That may make governing the US more exciting, but the the bogus peace of congressional complacency has brought the country to vary dangerous place. I would trade where we are today for more excitement and more instability for the situation today that has been produced by excessive rigidity in political regimes between elections. I think even an attempt at impeachment of VP that failed because of lack of votes in congress would be better than what we have today.
Cindy McCain has aged well or has a good surgeon.
ot
………….
are you shitting me?
Teams of Armed Officers, Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Being Added to New York City Subways
VERENA DOBNIK
AP News
Feb 01, 2008 19:52 EST
Teams of police officers armed with submachine guns and bomb-sniffing dogs will soon be patrolling the busiest parts of New York City subways as part of a major increase in regional security funding.
The subway initiative is one use of the $151.2 million in new grant money from the Department of Homeland Security to transit systems in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey. Last year, they received $98 million
Don’t you love it when the case becomes one of procedure and the underlying case is completely ignored?
This is a rather disgusting feature of the justice system which will place more emphasis on procedure than on justice, completely missing the whole point of the case.
This stuff really pisses me off about lawyers and the courts. NO JUSTICE NO PEACE
both…she was teh hooked on the hillbilly heroin…but livin with Mr. SHORT FUSE must be challenging
The Wiki page seems to only list the actual HOLDERS of the Chief Justice position, and not those that were nominated and failed to be approved by the Senate. Although why they have Rutledge in there befuddles me…unless he actually was an “Acting CJ” and went up for approval subsequently. Perhaps as a “recess appointment” to fill a vacancy. But the Constitutional issues on this are all so ephemeral. Admittedly the actual Justices have to be approved by the Senate…but does the Chief Justice? Does the Senate have to approve Chairmanship positions within Executive Committees? Is that only IF the President, rather than the Committee itself, makes that appointment?
Lots of kettles of very eely fish here…and though I like to read the Constitution, IANAL, especially a Constitutional one.
When is someone on the left going to deal with the reality that the public perception that Pro-choice and Pro-abortion are two completely different things?
This is a really big problem. Conservatives believe that pro-choice advocates want to encourage that they kill their babies, with the blessing of some kind of controlled government-subsidized program.
Please deal with this.
Anybody get what I’m saying?
Ledbetter needed to consult with an attorney familiar with the ruling of the 10th Circuit in Plotke v. White. The clock does not start when the SC now claims ….
/AJPlotke
No. I asked Christy this once, and she said Roberts will stay on as Chief Justice. A new president does not get to play musical chairs.
I must admit, I am not wishing him remission
I think the frame should be switched to pro-privacy. Without privacy, no other rights mean anything.
Abe Fortas wiki
I don’t know what the law is, but having a clock on some sort of injustice, is nonsense. Justice demands that someone who has been treated with prejudice does not loss the right of redress because of some clock.
A right is not something someone can give you.
A right is something that no one can take away.
OT..
Anyone have a idea of how many voters there are in the US?
Very good point!
OT
Why did the prices of oil and other commodities rise so much? The reason is simple–hedge funds funded indirectly by commodity producers pumped huge amounts of cash into commodities.
We do not disagree that oil demand has been rising and oil supply is relatively constrained. But an oil industry expert we have known for years argues that if top oil industry insiders believed oil prices would exceed $60 per barrel for at least several years, tremendous amounts of new supply would come online not only from greatly enhanced drilling but from nontraditional sources such as oil shale and tar sands.
We believe oil prices of $100 per barrel are due solely to inflows into hedge funds that use some of their new money to buy commodities. Funds of hedge funds typically allocate a portion of their new money to commodities. Where do hedge funds get a good deal of their new money? We think much of it comes from commodity producers. In other words, commodity producers were using some of the additional cash generated from higher commodity prices to invest in commodities, which in turn drove commodity prices higher still.
My county, Billary’s county:
White Plains – Westchester County faces an energy crisis, and state and local officials must act quickly to avoid the prospect of power shortages, blackouts and skyrocketing electricity bills that will hurt the county’s quality of life and undermine economic growth. These are some of the warnings issued Thursday by a coalition of major regional business groups.
And it’s not just sub prime mortgages:
The economic bubble that lifted the stock market to dizzying heights was sustained as much by cheap oil as by cheap (often fraudulent) mortgages. Likewise, the collapse of the bubble was caused as much by costly (often imported) oil as by record defaults on those improvident mortgages. Oil, in fact, has played a critical, if little commented on, role in America’s current economic enfeeblement – and it will continue to drain the economy of wealth and vigor for years to come.
Look what NAFTA did:
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (CNN) — Hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged central Mexico City Thursday with their slow-moving tractors, protesting the entry of cheap imported corn from the United States and Canada.
Impeachment is restricted to “high crimes and misdemeanors” but these are so vacuously defined that it’s essentially a political trial. If you can obtain the votes of enough Senators (2/3rd’s of those present at the trial) to declare some action that the House has passed up (by majority vote) is a “high crime or misdemeanor” then you can convict.
Given the “high bar” to get the votes (i.e. one party will likely be reticent to convict THEIR President despite the evidence of even most heinous violations of the Constitution) it’s likely that only some very real egregious act will ever result in a conviction. Even in cases of judges, and executive officers it’s occurred just over a score of times in US history. It was actually pretty common in the first decades of the Constitution (suggesting it was, in fact, meant as a normal remedy for malfeasance) and often for relatively trivial offenses.
It was used frequently during the Radical Reconstruction period, as well. At that time one Secretary of War was actually impeached AFTER he resigned from office (though not convicted it was by a whisker…and largely based on the fact that he had resigned…but a large majority of both the House and Senate said that post-resignation impeachment was legitimate).
Immigrant corn!
-G
Oh for the good old days.
Well, we should have a different system for impeachment and have a lottery to draft citizens from the nation to be the jury. Let the two parties be the prosecuting and the defending counsel.
Lots of room to fix up the constitution.
I’m in Rockland.
Oy!
My perception is that’s why the term “Pro-Choice” was developed…and that anyone that’s asked about it who supports choice makes the distinction.
To say that no one on the left has dealt with that is simply wrong. It’s a constant battle with misperceptions promoted by the “Right To
LifersControl Womens’ Choicers” who are, in fact, anti-abortion…and in many cases anti-contraception.O&R is nothing to write home about!
Whatever you do, DO NOT call (615) 346-6006 unless you are really Fred Thompson!
EPU’ed but what the hey,
Here are some references to SCOTUS decisions from my scandals list. Ledbetter is 201.
200. SCOTUS: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (integration)
201. SCOTUS: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (gender discrimination)
202. SCOTUS: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (issue oriented political advertising)
203. SCOTUS: Morse et al v. Frederick (free speech of minors)
204. SCOTUS: Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (price fixing OK’ed)
208. SCOTUS: Rapanos v. United States (wetland protection)
Others:
26. Gonzales v. Carhart (Partial Birth)
31. 2000 election
85. Guantanamo decisions
140. Faith based initiatives
“Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had consulted with Fortas about political matters frequently while Fortas was on the Court.”
Not sure if Rutledge “appeared before the Senate” but his nomination was denied by the Senate (he was a Recess Appointment whose term had expired).
In 1925 Harlan Stone appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his nomination to CJ, and Felix Frankfurter did so in 1939. In 1955 Justice Harlan appeared before the SJC, and it’s been traditional since that point for all pending appointees to the CJ position. It may be one reason why it’s been more or less common by Presidents to appoint a new nominee to the CJ position rather than a sitting Associate Justice. All the questions thus get placed only once, and two separate interrogations need not be held.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the Wiki entry above…was Fortas actually brought before the entire Senate?
What’s your pleasure, said the geriatric pusher lol
Noam Chomsky has long talked about this practice of promoting phony elections in the third world; it’s hardly new with Bush II. He calls it “manufacturing consent”. The purpose of the election is to legitimize the policies of the client government, and the job of the client government is to do what Washington (and Washington’s business allies) want. Meanwhile Washington and the international corporations would have their thumbs on the scales, making sure that the right people win.
When people freely and fairly elect the wrong people (Allende in Chile, Chavez in Venezuela, Hamas in Palestine) the victors are then demonized and crushed. That’s because the purpose of democracy is not for the people to choose, but for the people to choose correctly. Or else.