Signs the SCOTUS is politically motivated?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

So we’re all on the same page:

U.S. Constitution, Art. III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. [This section modified by Amendment XI]

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed…

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

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.

OK. I’m just trying to figure out when Congress should have taken notice that the 180 day time period could cause employees problems. As I read more about this, I can see we can push that period back at least to 1989 in the case of LORANCE v. AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. Rather than slogging thru that decision, it’s easier to look at EEOC’s summary:

Selected Supreme Court Decisions

<jump down to Lorance v. AT&T Technologies >

The Court holds that the time in which a facially neutral seniority system can be challenged runs from the adoption of the alleged discriminatory system. The Court rejects EEOC’s position that the limitations period begins to run only when the employee is adversely affected by the seniority system. Lorrance is the first EEOC case in which the agency’s General Counsel, Charles Shanor, is permitted to argue in the United States Supreme Court.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Ravenman

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.

Well, sort of. It’s more that I simply don’t like the decision, but think the Court should (obviously, it has no such obligation) interpret the law in a manner consistant with the methods of legal interpetation that I prefer. In other words, I think the court should agree with me.

Of course, I agree with you that I prefer that Congress write the law, and that Congress should fix the laws if they don’t like the result of how cours interpret the law.

Does this help clear up what I’m saying? I’m not saying that, in this ruling, the Court didn’t rely on precedent, or that their decision was outrageous. I’m just saying that I think their decision was wrong, and that Justice Ginsburg’s dissent was correct.