The Supreme Court of the United States yesterday sided with Walmart by derailing a class action lawsuit stemming from allegations that the company discriminated against women by paying them less than male counterparts and not giving them advancement opportunities.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that Walmart policies denied them pay or promotion. In a unanimous decision, the court deemed the class in the class action was too large.
This is outrageous.
No class should be considered too large. In some cases, a class should consist of every American. The Supreme Court should have allowed the class action to move forward and for a decision to be rendered by a jury of average Americans. Instead, nine appointed justices weakened the power of the American people. While Walmart may have not discriminated against women, the case deserved to be heard so that a jury could make the decision and the arguments could be made by both sides in open court.
Welcome to "The Report," a blog designed to provide fair, honest, informative, non-partisan commentary about topics of interest to the American people. The Report encourages user contribution through comments, which are read by the authors and will often be responded to. Interested in writing for The Report? Post a comment on our most recent story with your e-mail address or reach on on Twitter: @OnTheReport
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Scalia's Wrong On Discrimination
The Huffington Post, FOX News, and even Perez Hilton (a major liberal) today took notice of an interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in which the Justice alleges that it would be Constitutional for laws to be made that directly discriminate against women (or men):
In suggesting that discrimination against a gender is Constitutional, what Justice Scalia suggests is not only complete inconsistent with the Constitution itself, but also inconsistent with the views of the American people. Justice Scalia's suggestion goes against true conservative values, which follow the belief that all Americans are equal and reject discrimination or bigotry.
At the end of his post about Mr. Scalia, Perez Hilton asks the question "He's retiring soon, right?" after noting that it was "troubling that all of this is coming from a current Supreme Court Justice." Given his inability to properly interpret he Constitution and ensure equal protection is provided to the American people, Justice Scalia's retirement would likely be beneficial to the country. However, if he were to retire while President Obama is in office, it could lead to the appointment of a far-left, liberal activist justice with even more disdain for the Constitution. A best-case scenario would be for a conservative to be elected President, and for Justice Scalia to resign once a more conservative leader is in office who can ensure that someone is appointed to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution.
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about.Unfortunately, Justice Scalia is wrong. This is not the first time he has proclaimed that gender discrimination is legal. In 1996, he was the lone member of the Supreme Court in United States v. Virginia who voted against stricking down the Virginia Military Institute's policy that did not allow the admission of women. A majority of the court believed that the policy violated the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.
In suggesting that discrimination against a gender is Constitutional, what Justice Scalia suggests is not only complete inconsistent with the Constitution itself, but also inconsistent with the views of the American people. Justice Scalia's suggestion goes against true conservative values, which follow the belief that all Americans are equal and reject discrimination or bigotry.
At the end of his post about Mr. Scalia, Perez Hilton asks the question "He's retiring soon, right?" after noting that it was "troubling that all of this is coming from a current Supreme Court Justice." Given his inability to properly interpret he Constitution and ensure equal protection is provided to the American people, Justice Scalia's retirement would likely be beneficial to the country. However, if he were to retire while President Obama is in office, it could lead to the appointment of a far-left, liberal activist justice with even more disdain for the Constitution. A best-case scenario would be for a conservative to be elected President, and for Justice Scalia to resign once a more conservative leader is in office who can ensure that someone is appointed to the Supreme Court who will respect the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)