Apologies for the spelling in the title.
Posted on 09/25/2020 7:39:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
With the fight brewing over a new Supreme Court justice, it’s helpful to understand the danger American faces because of Ginsburgian judicial activism. One of the best examples of Ginsburg’s philosophy is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), in which Ginsburg wrote the dissent, not the opinion.* The facts of the case are simple, which highlights the difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism.
Ledbetter involved that part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making it illegal to pay different salaries based solely on sex. Like all EEOC matters, the Act gave employees claiming discrimination a short time within to bring a claim:
An individual wishing to challenge an employment practice under this provision must first file a charge with the EEOC. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Such a charge must be filed within a specified period (either 180 or 300 days, depending on the State) “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” ibid., and if the employee does not submit a timely EEOC charge, the employee may not challenge that practice in court, § 2000e-5(f)(1).
Ledbetter at 623-624.
In plain English, Congress had mandated that a person claiming salary discrimination had 180 or 300 days from the discriminatory act to file a claim with the EEOC. Ledbetter had received smaller paychecks than her male peers for years. Given that she had a limited amount of time to sue after learning about the discrimination, it was essential to determine if the discriminatory act occurred with every paycheck or if it occurred when Goodyear decided to pay her less. If the latter was correct, Ledbetter had missed her window of opportunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Advocates should not be judges, unless they are advocates for the Constitution, the rule of law, and blind justice.
Her grave should be treated like toxic waste dump with 20 feet of concrete encasing it.
She was a political activist.
She was an awful judge.
In the majority opinion, Justice Alito carefully explained that both the statutory language and judicial precedent were clear: For a wage discrimination claim under Title VII, the clock starts to run when the discriminatory wage is put in place, not every time a new paycheck issues:
The EEOC charging period is triggered when a discrete unlawful practice takes place. A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.
Having made this determination, the court stopped. It did not rewrite the law. It left that to Congress, and, in 2009, Obama’s Democrat Congress amended the law to expand the time for employees to file claims.
In her dissent, Ginsburg, unlike the majority, did not start with the law; she started with her preferred outcome. Ginsburg felt the law was unfair because it may take more than a few hundred days before an employee learns that her employer discriminates against her. In other words, Ginsburg was misrepresenting law and eliding facts to obtain an outcome inconsistent with both law and facts.
Ginsburg wanted to rewrite the law to force her preferred outcome. The strict constructionists on the Court, however, were careful not to make law. They merely interpreted the law as written in light of case precedent. It was Congress’s job to change the law if it didn’t like its effects as written.
THIS COUNTRY CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER JUSTICE OR EVEN JUDGE LIKE RBG WHO LEGISLATES FROM THE BENCH, IF THE RULE OF LAW IS TO PREVAIL!
In the majority opinion, Justice Alito carefully explained that both the statutory language and judicial precedent were clear: For a wage discrimination claim under Title VII, the clock starts to run when the discriminatory wage is put in place, not every time a new paycheck issues:
The EEOC charging period is triggered when a discrete unlawful practice takes place. A new violation does not occur, and a new charging period does not commence, upon the occurrence of subsequent nondiscriminatory acts that entail adverse effects resulting from the past discrimination.
Having made this determination, the court stopped. It did not rewrite the law. It left that to Congress, and, in 2009, Obama’s Democrat Congress amended the law to expand the time for employees to file claims.
In her dissent, Ginsburg, unlike the majority, did not start with the law; she started with her preferred outcome. Ginsburg felt the law was unfair because it may take more than a few hundred days before an employee learns that her employer discriminates against her. In other words, Ginsburg was misrepresenting law and eliding facts to obtain an outcome inconsistent with both law and facts.
Ginsburg wanted to rewrite the law to force her preferred outcome. The strict constructionists on the Court, however, were careful not to make law. They merely interpreted the law as written in light of case precedent. It was Congress’s job to change the law if it didn’t like its effects as written.
THIS COUNTRY CANNOT AFFORD ANOTHER JUSTICE OR EVEN JUDGE LIKE RBG WHO LEGISLATES FROM THE BENCH, IF THE RULE OF LAW IS TO PREVAIL!
Agreed. She stayed there till the end and then did not want anyone to replace her until after the election. Right to the end she was a political, commie activist who had no respect for the Constitution , or this country.
I really don’t find any of her opinions particularly scholarly. Neither with Sotomyer and Hagen.
These judges give rubber stamped opinions probably written by left wing activist ghost writers.
John Roberts does the same thing.
Figure first the outcome you want, then develop the argument to achieve that outcome.
I will not rest until we have at least one more elected SCOTUS judge for Trump to appoint.
I’m predicting that he will win reelection and he will have 3 or 4 more picks within the next 4 years. Certainly 2 more.
1. Thomas
2. Sotomyer
3. Breyer
4. Alito
She was the most political justice I could think of: criticizing a presidential candidate, repeatedly commenting publicly on matters pending before the court, etc. her purported deathbed wish was just her final act of being a wretched tyrant.
If RBG really wanted someone with the same Judicial philosophy to replace her (as she expressed), she should have retired in say, 2015 when she was 82 ( she already had cancer then ). But she kept clinging to her position till the end, perhaps expecting Hillary ( whose husband nominated her ) to win. Well, things don’t always turn out the way we want. In fact, I suspect that during her last years, she had to largely depend on her clerks to do the work for her and she simply signed off on their work.
Should ( God willing ),Trump win this November, Justice Breyer ( who is 82 ) will be the next to be replaced.
Eventually, the great Clarence Thomas ( who many says has expressed his wish to retire ), will also be replaced by the next President.
Let’s hope and pray it is Trump making the nomination and not Kamala Harris ( we know she will be calling the shots should God forbid, Biden win ).
RE: John Roberts does the same thing.
Roberts’ Obamacare decision, where he re-imagined what clearly is a penalty to be a “tax” was one of the worst case of bench legislation I have ever seen.
President Obama himself when interviewed said that it was categorically NOT a tax.
The right decision would have been to throw the law as written back to Congress and ask them to re-write it to make it clear that it was a tax.
But no, Roberts took it upon himself to re-write it singlehandedly.
I agree. He’s had others, but that was the worst.
Bush was such a POS light weight then and now. None of these scrubs are lifting a finger to help us out.
We should have retained the House in 2018.
Roberts is a joke...
According to reports from yesterday’s gathering at the Supreme Court of her law clerks, she wasn’t much of an “equal opportunity” employer... Didn’t hear the MSM reporting on that... Only Rush.
Apologies for the spelling in the title.
Would prefer it being capped with public rest room.
Add to that list: Blatantly flaunting her ruling on homosexual marriage by conducting the ceremonies herself while ruling on the case.
There are many infamous decisions, but the one I remember involving the Second Amendment happened in 1942, in Cases v.United States.
There, the appeals Court three judge panel of the First Circuit ruled that they did not like the Supreme Court Miller Decision of 1939 (which says the Second Amendment applies to military arms, but short barreled shotguns could be regulated), so they simply ignored it:
In Cases v. United States, 1942, a three-judge panel on the First Circuit ruled it was unlikely Miller meant military arms were protected by the Second Amendment: From Cases:
Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.
The judges did not want military arms protected, so they ruled they were not protected.
All three judges on the First Circuit in Cases v. United States, John Mahoney, Calvert Magruder, and Peter Woodbury, were appointed by FDR.
The Supreme Court refused to hear another Second Amendment case until 2008.
I assume the 180 day rule is that employers keep rejected applications for the position on file for 180 days?
If the pay was unacceptable she should have turned the job down and one of the other applicants should have been given a chance.
Maybe in some states it’s 300 days?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.