Replies

HERE's THE SUPREME COURT's FINAL DECISION ON THE LEDBETTER CASE:

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!