The only response I saw was in post #9. I don’t see how that answers the question. At any rate, do you see how the precedent was set in Morgan?
Upon further reflection, John Mace, I retract my former statement. The SCOTUS is designed to determine the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, stupid, yet constitutional laws will have to stick around for a while.
I guess I was just angry about the ruling. But you’re right: my anger is more appropriately placed with Congress, and not the SCOTUS.
Adam
As far as I know, the SCOTUS wasn’t “designed” to do any such thing. They basically took that power, and everyone just kind of followed along.
Well, I have to say that you’ve done something I rarely see around here-- admit a mistake. Congrats!
I have to say that I don’t know what is unique about these types of situations that they shouldn’t have something more like the 7 year statute of limitations that is, AFAIK, more common. At any rate, 180 days seems short. But I’m no expert on this stuff.
When the law is ambiguious, then the decision inevitably becomes political. This is one of these cases where the law can legitimately be interpreted either way. So in a case like that, mere reading of the law isn’t sufficient to come to a decision. So, in a case like this, questions of legal interpretation and values…in other words, political questions, come into play. In other words, if the composition of the court was different, the decision would be different.
No, of course not. That’s sort of the opposite of what I’m saying. In that case, it’s clear that the law isn’t on Mr. McGuffin’s side. That’s a case that can’t be interpreted in such a matter. That’s different than a case like this, though, where there’s no obvious statuatory answer…there’s just the Morgan decision, which the court is free to reverse if it wanted. Does that make sense?
Just for the record, while SCOTUS (as well as the lower federal courts) does determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, that’s not all it does, and this case didn’t turn on a constitutional question.
I think the precedent set in *Morgan *set up this decision. I haven’t read that actual decision, though, just the outcome.
I agree with almost everything in this paragraph. I think that if you look at a lot of the final votes, you see a lot of continuity in how justices vote. Sometimes, it’s ideological and sometimes it seems partisan. I’m just not entirely sure how Truth fits into it. If you take a “left” judge and a “right” judge, could they provide a few examples of how they’d vote opposite how they’ve always voted? that, to me, would be the litmus test.
I don’t think your specific question needs to be answered for it to be clear that it’s a matter of interpretation. For people to say that Congress said X and the SC agreed is incorrect. That was my point. The Supreme Court interpreted what Congress said a certain way and could have interpreted it differently which several other posters have pointed out.
I don’t see how Morgan sets any precedent that changes this.
Have you read the actual decision yet? When I read the dissent, it sound to me more like an attempt redesign the law rather than understand it. There was a lot of talk about how difficult things are in the workplace, not what Congress actually was attempting to do.
So why did the EEOC change it’s suggestion about filing deadlines?
I understand that the court is supposed to provide clarity. But they are not interpreting the Constitution, as far as I can tell, but some vague wording in the law. And to me that just doesn’t warrant a rebuke of the court. The court did not rule on some ground-breaking Constitutional issue that cannot be touched short of an amendment. Now it is up to Congress to correct this if they see fit.
Right, but if the court had ruled the right way, Congress wouldn’t have to pass a new law correcting the court’s bad decision.
How isa that the role of the court, though? If Congress passes a law that doesn’t work, they need to be the ones to fix it. Why do you want to give the Supreme Court super-legislative authority?
You know, I really should stop complaining about this. The Court is more conservative – I suppose if it has super-legislative authority I’m going to like the end results a lot more than I’d like what this Congress comes up with. Maybe I should simply agree: the Court SHOULD regard itself as a final oversight for Congress, to steer Congress and the laws in the REAL direction that our country should go.
I really think folks need to read the Court’s opinion before talking about what the “right” or “wrong” decision is. Look at the reasoning and what the court actually said. When I read the majority opinion, it basically just says: applying the precedent set in Morgan, we have to uphold the Appeal’s Court decision. When I read the dissenting opinion, it basically says: Well, if I had written the law, I would have wanted it to say such and such, because conditions in the workplace are really tough for women, especially when they’re breaking into new fields… Then she goes on to, incorrectly*, cite *Morgan *as a precedent for her views.
*Alito addressed the error in the majority opinion.
This isn’t a case of giving the Court super-legislative authority. This is a case of the Court interpreting the laws of the legislature, which is the role of the court.
Look, in this case, you’ve got a statute that says that, if there’s a case of discrimination, the person being discriminated against has to file a complaint within 180 days. Further, in this case, you have ongoing discrimination in terms of pay discrepancy, and the statute is silent as to whether ongoing discrimination tolls the 180 day period.
So, that being the case, because the statute is silent on the matter, it’s up to the Court to decide. It’s consistant with the statute to rule, as the Court did, that the 180 day period begins at the date of the original salary discrepancy. It’s also consistant with the statute to rule, though, that the 180 day period begins when the different salaries are paid…that each time when the employer pays the people differently is a distinct act of discrimination. Or do you want to argue that there’s no grounds at all for reading the statute that way, or that the plain reading of the statute demands the decision the Court made?
It’s when the clock SHOULD start . . . but fundamentally, how is it any different from the situation in the decision? If somebody makes a discriminatory decision in the past that has an impact years later, the clock should start running when that impact is realized upon the employee.
I don’t see why, if the sign is buried in a file somewhere. Fundamentally, how is that any different from a negative review?
I’m confused. I think we are saying the same thing.
If the sign were discovered at some point, it would indicate that management held hostile views towards minorities. If the sign never came to light, then it would be as if it had never existed, and would have no bearing on the case. I assume you mean that it did eventually come to light. A negative review could be given for any number of legitimate reasons.
Perhaps we aren’t using the term political in the same way. When I think of political decisions, I think of efforts to impose a particular agenda, or to curry favor with one’s constituents, or to achieve the best possible outcome in attempt to build consensus among widely divergent views. But in this case, I don’t see any evidence from the decision that there was an attempt to impose an agenda (the majority did not try to justify their opinion based upon the alternative being too hostile to businesses, for example), I can’t see that the Court really cares much about constituency, and the Court didn’t seem to stake out any middle ground.
You seem to be saying that if one’s worldview is reflected in the decisions one makes, then it is politics: the arguable majority of the Supreme Court lean toward a narrower interpretation of laws, and therefore if they apply that view to a case, they’re engaged in politics. Well, then, every single case in the history of the Supreme Court was decided by politics, was it not? So we can’t fairly criticize the Court by this measure, because politics would have to be routine.
The only alternative left is that you simply don’t like the decision, but think the Supreme Court has an obligation to rewrite the law in a manner you find preferable. I agree that I think the outcome of the case is incredibly unfortunate to the woman who I believe has been wronged. But suffice it to say that I prefer that Congress write the laws, and Congress should have to fix the laws if they write in ambiguity and don’t like the results of how courts interpret the law. It isn’t like Congress is unable to address the situation: Congress created the ambiguity, and while I don’t like the results, the opinion makes clear to me that the Court relied on precedent, not fickle political opinion, to say that limits to what can construe a continuing case of discrimination has already been established.
If one looks at the decision, it should be imminently clear that the Court just didn’t up and decide willy-nilly that this woman didn’t deserve anything: the legal foundation for the decision rests on the Morgan decision, and also Evans, and Ricks, and AT&T. Reading through the summaries of those cases, it strikes me that the Court is ruling pretty consistently on these matters going back to 1980. Which poses the question in my mind, why has Congress failed to address this unfairness for the last 27 years? And if Congress hasn’t acted, knowing full well that these cases are decided in a narrow way (too narrow, IMHO), why should the courts spontaneously up and change the law if Congress seems content with the way the statute is being interpreted?
Understood. I just had to ask the question. I have the feeling that some others would be more sympathetic to our young punk friend.
I’m not sure those other cases would have sent up red flags to Congress*, but as I noted above, Morgan prompted the EEOC to revise its guidelines for when the clock starts ticking. Now that should have sent a message to Congress. And that part of the decision in *Morgan *was a unanimous ruling but the SCOTUS (there was more than one part to the case).
*I’m saying this because I haven’t reviewed those cases, not because I have reason to doubt you. If you have info that they should have alerted Congress to problems, I’d be interested in seeing the details.
No, I’m not saying that there was some specific call to arms issued to the Congress. But I was surprised that the trend toward limiting the concept of “continuing discrimination” began nearly 30 years ago. Along with your point about the EEOC, if nobody in Congress knew about how this important law was being interpreted by the courts, then clearly Capitol Hill has dropped the ball.