USA Legal system DYSFUNCTIONAL
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
United States
May 30, 2007 11:50am CST
Justice Ginsberg of the USA Supreme Court recently read a dissent from the bench. She was reading the opinion of herself and 3 other members of the court.
These 4 distinquished jurists disagreed with a recent majority opinion wherein the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer after the time limit as written into the law had expired! Thus the case was dismissed.
What? How could any judge disagree with dismissing a suit that was filed too late according to the law? The law clearly imposed a time limit for the filing of such law suits. How do people like Justice Ginsberg and her like minded jurists justify the ignoring of the law in forming their opinions?
I understand Justice Ginsberg thinks the woman who brought the case was in the right. However, it is Justice Ginsberg's job to make sure the law as written is enforced, not to be a biased justice in favor of the plantif.
It boggles my mind that the USA has Supreme Court justices who do not understand even high school level civics in how the government is supposed to be run.
In case you think I am making this up, here is a url from a reputable source in the field of civil rights.
http://www.civilrights.org/press_room/buzz_clips/over-ginsburgs-dissent.html
What say you?
Why was this case not dismissed at the first low level court when introduced? Are our judges that afraid of political correctness that they are afraid to rule according to the law in some cases?
Is it right for justices to be advocates for the plantif?
Has the USA legal system become dysfunctional?
3 people like this
3 responses
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
30 May 07
I hate to say it; but, when Supreme Court judges are political appointees, what do you expect?
The article I read about it said that Sandra Day O'Conner would have disagreed with the court's decision and if she had bee on the bench the verdict would have gone the other way.
Instead, we have a decision that supports "big business" at the expense of the individual. That's no surprise considering who has been doing the appointing the past 6 years.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
31 May 07
I view this Supreme Court decision in support of the law, not business. Laws have to be enforced as they are written. The law is supposed to be objective and logical, thus removing the judge's preferences and bias from the cases he hears.
In this particular case, it is a disgrace that it was not a 9-0 decision against the woman who brought it.
There was a time limit for the case to be filed. The time limit was missed. There is no other choice but to dismiss the case. That any Supreme Court justice would ignore this aspect of the written law is shocking.
Laws have to be enforced as written without the judges personal feelings entering into it or we have a tryanny of whoever is the judge.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
31 May 07
Thank you for the update. You are much better informed on this issue than myself. I appreciate being given information of which I was unaware. I hope you continue to post in my threads. I don't want to stay ignorant! :-)
1 person likes this
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
31 May 07
Actually, it was this "court’s interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”"
Since the law went into effect it had always been held that each pay statement with the lower pay was an "individual act of discrimination". I remember discussions about this act when it went into force and the "180 day" rule was said to be there to prevent workers from retiring, being fired, or quitting and then several years later claiming they they had been discriminated against. This was put in to protect "big business" from "disgruntled ex-employees".
The NEW interpretation changes the meaning of that portion to mean that the 180 day period starts when the pay is "first set". So if a company hires people at the same pay and LATER discriminates after the "180 day" period the company can't be held accountable.
The wording of the law has not changed. It is the "interpretation" of that law that has changed.
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
31 May 07
Yes the legal system is dysfunctional, and the Supreme Court is a major cause of that.
They have been making laws by their rulings for years, instead of just ruling on the laws that we have.
It is not right for justices to be advocates of anything other than what the law says.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
31 May 07
I certainly agree with you on this destiny. However, take a gander at the comments under speakeasy's response. She updated some info I did not see in the article. This case is not as simple as it seems at first.
1 person likes this
@naty1941 (2336)
• United States
30 May 07
I previously read the case and it appears that the woman did not file on time so that is why it was dismissed. The Supreme Court appears to go strictly by what is written and will not change their opinion even if it only requires common sense. I think the USA legal system has been dysfunctional for a long time!
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
31 May 07
The legal system is about the rule of law as opposed to having to be ruled by the whim of anyone, including judges.
To accomplish this it is essential that judges rule according to how the law is written, not how they feel, or what might seem to be common sense.
To have common sense in the law, elect congressmen and senators who write common sense laws. The judge's job is only to see that the law as written by our elected legislators is enforced.
Judges are supposed to be bound by the written law. This protects us all from the tryanny of judges forcing us to do as they want instead of doing what is specified by the laws which our elected legislators have passed.
The Supreme Court is absolutely supposed to go only by what is written. They have no other authority.
2 people like this
