As jurisprudence goes, the last few years have seen legal thinking so daft that one could conclude that it was the babblings of psycho ward inmates.

The hand’s down babbler in chief is, of course, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who in writing for the majority in turning aside a lawsuit against Wal-Mart by women employees “reasoned” that the failure of the retail giant to have a uniform employment policy which may result in systematic gender bias has no standing because there is no policy.

Having let that sink in, we’ll move on the former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who runs a close second for what one commentator called Mukasey’s Paradox.

That is, lawyers cannot commit crimes like justifying the use of torture when they act under the orders of a president, and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of these lawyers.

Please pass the Paxil.

Shaun Mullen
Sort by:   newest | oldest
superdestroyer
Guest
superdestroyer
5 years 3 months ago

Shaun,

The Wal-Mart ruling as a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court. The liberal and conservatives justices just differed on the reason for supporting the ruling.

Do you really want all employers to have hard quotas for hiring and promotion so that they cannot be subjected to frivolous lawsuits like the Wal-Mart lawsuit. Do you really want to make every employer have to go through the legal gymnastics that fire and police departments go through in order to hire competent people?

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 3 months ago

AFAIK no one said there was no discrimination, simply that it has to be proven more conclusively than it can as a class action. It’s not enough to claim “These women were discriminated against, I’m a woman too, therefore I was discriminated against. Look at how women do on average–it must all be discrimination.” It’s reasonable that the burden of proof is higher than that.

DLS
Guest
DLS
5 years 3 months ago

What a nice whack to the class-action scam.

DLS
Guest
DLS
5 years 3 months ago

I’ll ignore the emotive and illogical stuff.

It’s a scam. The claims are often questionable, and moreover arguing that everyone be treated the same flies in the face of reality, routinely*. To top it off, how much do the victims (or “victims”) get, versus what the lawyers (“plaintiffs”) get?

Now, you might have had one good quibble, had you been serious and logical. The word “scam” is ambiguous as I have used it. There are scams targeting individuals in which the scammer tries to get people’s bank information “so you can get your settlement.” Perhaps I should have been more proper, and said that this “representative plaintiff” racket is a racket. It’s just going after deep pockets with a grossly inflated damage claim. (Again, what do the “victims” get, and what do the “repreasentative plaintiffs” get?)

Never mind other details such as how clear a “class” of plaintiffs must be, or that we now have the specter of having federal class action lawsuits where before they would have been heard in state courts.

* among a group of individuals, obviously, and that doesn’t even consider members of the same “class” that consist of, for example, ordinary individuals and large institutional investors, which likely have different interests (so what does that say about a single as-large-as-possible “class”?)

DLS
Guest
DLS
5 years 3 months ago

That’s food for thought, Shaun, if you can quit non-thinking and quit misbehaving for a rare moment and try thinking for a Change.

superdestroyer
Guest
superdestroyer
5 years 3 months ago

Shaun,

You must have read over the parts where the plantiff lawyers argued that statistical differences in promotion between men and women is evidence of discrimination. The only solution to having statistical difference is blatant quotas.

Why are liberal so interested in quotas and promote them every chance they get. Even when the University of Michigan was caught red-handed with documents showing that they hand separate and unequal admission standards, the left still fully supporst state sanction racism, open discrimination, and want even more quotas.

wpDiscuz