Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACT BEHIND THE NEWS
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B
Showing posts with label The Conservative Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Conservative Supreme Court. Show all posts
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Is the Bill of Rights in danger?
Where is the conservative
Supreme Court taking us?
IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.
In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”, unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion.. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.
Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.
The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Right by passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.
Supreme Court taking us?
IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.
In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”, unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion.. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.
Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.
The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Right by passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)