I told you Alito was an asshole ...

Yesterday the Supreme Court voted, by an 8-1 majority, that businesses can’t take reprisals against employees who complain about discrimination on the job. The case involved a woman employed by the railroad who complained about being sexually harassed by her supervisor. She was not fired or demoted, but her work assignment was changed to other, more physically challenging work that eventually injured her and put her on disability.

The Supreme Court said this kind of shit is a no-no. The sole dissenter: Judge Alito. Hell, even that old asshole Scalia did the right thing here, but not Alito. What a piece of filth!

All you conservatives out there who defended the bastards: I tolja so. I expect to have many, many other opportunities to make comments along these lines in the next few years.

I only hope that no other justices leave the court before January 20, 2009.

Do you think you’ll really be happier with whoever McCain appoints after that?

Do you have a cite? Not that I’m defending Alito per se, but without the circumstances the fact that she was not fired or demoted but placed in another job and she then got hurt does not constitute reprisal. Obviously most of the Supreme Court disagrees with that, and I’m interested as to why.


That said, yes, I expect I would be. Though I would never vote for McCain (shouldn’t say never, but it would take an astonishingly bad Democrat for me to do so), he is, at least, a principled conservative whose actions appear to be based more on “What is good for the country?” rather than on “What is good for me?”

If you’re talking about *Burlington N. & S.F. R. Co. v. White*, the decision was unanimous. I’ve linked to the syllabus, but at the top of the page, you can click on links to Breyer’s opinion and Alito’s concurrence.

A concurrence is not a dissent; that is, Justice Alito agreed with the majority’s judgment (that White had been retaliated against in violation of Title VII when, following her complaints about her supervisor, she was suspended without pay then demoted from forklift operator to floor worker), but he disagreed with part of the majority’s reasoning. Ultimately, however, he reaches the same result under different reasoning:

In other words, Alito is complaining about the majority’s interpretation of statutory language. I find it fascinating that he couldn’t get Scalia on board for that, since he’s making what amounts to a linguistic argument.

Or perhaps the Supreme Court issued a different decision yesterday regarding employement discrimination? I only saw that one (and prisoner litigation, immigration, and criminal law).

Any idea what the reason for the dissent was?

I suspect it was a little more than, “I’m an asshole, and I think employers should be allowed to dump on employees who annoy them.”

I think I’ll withhold my judgement for the moment.

Here’s your cite, Airman Doors and, well, color me wrong. turns out it was a unanimous decision.

(Er, I’m sure Scalia will do OTHER nasty things, and maybe be the only one doing it, he just pulled a sneaky move by not doing it this time. But just you wait …)

Mods, given the fact that Alito didn’t vote as I thought he did, if you want to close the thread or rename the titile something along the lines of “Alito actually an OK guy on discrimination case, amazingly enough” feel free. Or you can leave it as is, as a reminder that even a poster as exalted as myself can make a mistake.

Well, we’re not going to change the title, as that would disrupt the space-time continuum. It’s like the old saying: mods who change history are doomed to get a lot of reported posts. Or something. I also think it’s a bit early to close it, as people may still want to come call you an asshole for being wrong.

So, in summary, I am not going to do anything.

Well, I don’t really wanna call him an asshole - yet. It could have been an honest mistake. I am kinda curious where he got his info from, though.

I was all set to post a scathing commentary on your ability to read a judicial decision… but you’ve taken the wind out of those sails now, dang it.

I THOUGHT I heard it on NPR driving home yesterday. Clearly I did not. There was an 8-1 decision involving the deportation of a Mexican man who lived in the United States for 20 years and claimed he should not be subject to 1996 restrictions on immigrants. Maybe I got them concatenated. But I could swear I heard specifically that Scalia was the standout, and I don’t think he would have stood out on that one.

Well, even if I hadn’t posted in time, it’s lucky for me Giraffe came along and gave me that excuse about the space-time continuum leaking … it was a space-time continuum thing … that’s what it was …

Ah, that sounds like an understandable mistake.

The dissent in the immigration case was Stevens, not Scalia.

AND, in the space-time continuum track I inhabit, the thread title was about Alito, not Roberts or Scalia.


You people need to get your space-time continuums straight. :dubious:

He would hold that a plaintiff asserting a §704(a) retaliation claim must show the same type of materially adverse employment action that is required for a §703(a) discrimination claim? That bastard! Motherfuck him!1! Now see what you got when you elected BUSH??/??

You are right. I heard 8-1 on that case this morning. They did not specifically mention Alito though.