June 20, 2011

Scalia demands written policies

Our right-wing Supreme Court justices give me another chance to ridicule them:

Supreme Court blocks huge class-action suit against Wal-Mart

The ruling in the suit, filed on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female employees, may all but end big class-action cases that seek money from employers for discrimination.

By David G. Savage
Women and minorities who think they are underpaid will find it nearly impossible to band together to sue employers for discrimination under a Supreme Court ruling against 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees in the most important job-bias case in a decade.

Only if there is proof a company has a policy of paying less to women or minorities can the employees get together in a class-action suit, the court said in an opinion Monday by Justice Antonin Scalia. Statistics showing that a company's female workers earn far less and get fewer promotions than men will not suffice, the court said.

The decision is the latest in a series of major rulings favoring business under the stewardship of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Columbia University law professor John Coffee said the Wal-Mart ruling all but sounded the death knell for class-action suits that seek money from employers for discrimination.
Comment:  So let me get this straight: If a company has a written policy saying women are inferior and deserve less pay, that's illegal. But if the company produces the exact same results through unofficial winks and nods, that's legal.

In related news, the Supreme Court tossed a class-action suit by American Indians against the US government for its history of genocidal actions. Writing for the pro-extermination majority, Scalia said there was no written policy stating "kill the Indians" or the like.

"In a country of the United States' size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all officials would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction," Scalia said. "Significant proof that the US government operated under a general policy of discrimination is entirely absent here."

Yeah, I can't imagine millions of greedy, selfish Americans persecuting Indians with the tacit support of the US government. According to Scalia, it couldn't have happened. It's a figment of the Indians' imagination and no legal action is necessary.

Genocidal policies were written

A couple of people added comments:Scalia is a real piece of artwork.William Henry Harrison gave the orders to kill the Indians along the Wabash river in the great Northwest territory. It was recorded and written duh, what an idiot.

In California it was written law. First one on the books when it became a state.
A good lawyer might argue that those were the work of rogue officials. That they didn't represent an official policy at the federal level.

But yes...federal, state, and local policies along with court rulings and military decisions all conspired to eliminate Indians. Scalia's demand for written proof is, once again, a dodge to shield wealthy exploiters from harm. The evidence for genocide is tens of thousands of irrefutable results, not a written policy.

For more on the subject, see Slaughtering Buffalo = Genocide and Boarding Schools = Holocaust?


dmarks said...

This is a great example of a baseless lawsuit. Only a tiny fraction of the "plaintiffs" are actually participating in this. The rest are being "defended" againt their will by crooked attorneys.

Strip the lawsuit of any plaintiff who did not choose to proceed, and go on from there. As for now, justice has prevailed.

Anonymous said...

Scalia makes Serdar Argic look like a, how did Argic put it, a gum brain.

Rob said...

Every court except the far-right Supreme Court thought the lawsuit had merit, DMarks. So your "baseless" argument is, well, baseless.

With your pro-business bias, I guess you oppose all class-action lawsuits. Only those who can afford a lawyer can sue, and only one by one. The rest can suffer sexism and discrimination. That's the typical social Darwinism of an un-Christian conservative.