[atomicweeder]

Read the opinions of the Court. This is out of control judicial activism. The court ruled that the specific case, brought by some older police officers, had no validity. But it ruled that, in general, you did not have to prove intent to be biased. The 9 mullahs should only have said whether the case was valid or not. Instead, they went beyond that to make up a new law.

[BikerNYC]

Instead, they went beyond that to make up a new law.

Not really. They were trying to give the lower courts some guidance so a lot of time and energy won't be wasted waiting for another case to come up the pike.

Congress is often deliberately vague when it writes laws. Why? Because if they get too particular, there will be too much opposition to the legislation.

Congress often thinks it is, for example, better that a law prohibit adverse employment decisions "because of" age, rather than spell that out more specifically what that means. The Supreme Court is left with the task of figuring out what "because of" means.

[You Dirty Rats]

Read the opinions of the Court. This is out of control judicial activism.

Oh please. All eight Justices agreed that any claims would be strictly limited by RFOA (Reasonable factor other than age).

And as for your claim that they just decide the specific case -- true enough, but they have to first interpret the law and decide what the specific intent is before applying that reasoning to a result. The eight justices came to three different comclusions on the interpretation, but ended up with the same result in the case.

I get the feeling that some folks see judicial activism much as some saw Communism in the Fifties -- yes, it exists, but we won't find it in every decision or under your mother's bed.