Here is a guest blog by William T Coleman III - my step-dad.
Last week the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Alito in a cramped "strict constructionist" interpretation of Title VII, set the cause of equal employment rights back decades: The court made it virtually impossible for a plaintiff to contest a discriminatory pay system without filing a new lawsuit each time the claimant receives a pay check that is reduced by virture of the discriminatory pay structure. I agree with the observations of Armand Derfner, a great civil rights lawyer in Charleston, SC, who wrote this:
- In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court again upheld the slave status of Dred Scott, this time on the ground that his claim to freedom was barred by the statute of limitations. This was Scott's second unsuccessful attempt. An earlier suit seeking Scott's freedom was rejected in 1857, when the Supreme Court held Scott had no standing because he "'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."' 60 U.S. 393, 407. That decision led to the Civil War and the 13th amendment, which some people had hoped would emancipate Scott and other slaves.
Today's majority, however, held that Scott's claim, like any other lawsuit, had to be brought within a time limit known as a statute of limitations – in this case, 180 days. The Justices who voted in the majority all agreed that the suit came too late because no new act of enslavement had occurred within the statute of limitations, but there was some disagreement among them about when the time limit started running.
- Several of the majority Justices believed the time period started running at Scott's birth, i.e., he should have filed suit halfway between his first and second birthdays. Other Justices in the majority said that since his status originated in an earlier act of enslavement, and was simply carried forward by a uniform state law which gave all children regardless of race the status of their parents, the suit should have been filed within 180 days after Scott's African ancestor first arrived in chains in the 13 colonies..
The dissenters argued that the 13th amendment immediately freed all slaves, but the majority rejected this as simply a "'policy argument,"' that should be addressed by Congress or perhaps by another War.
Several of the majority Justices said in a footnote that they were not necessarily endorsing slavery, but Justices Scalia and Alito responded that this was an open question the Court need not reach - although they did express doubts about the slave trade because that activity did in fact involve new acts of enslavement.
Justice Thomas, who may be sent back to slavery as a result of this decision, voted with the majority.
The name of the decison is Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire Company. This just underscores the need to get a Democrat in the White House who will appoint fair judges who make decisons based on data and well established values rather their ideological predilictions.
Comments (8)
"In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court again upheld the slave status of Dred Scott, this time on the ground that his claim to freedom was barred by the statute of limitations. This was Scott's second unsuccessful attempt."
A second unsucessful attempt for Dred Scott? And Flavia agrees with Mr. Derfner? To call this piece of leftist foo-faw a rhetorical stretch would be an understatement. Things must be getting awfully desperate in lefty la-la land. And you lefties claim we pro-lifers exaggerate when we talk about the slippery slope. Muy interesante!
Posted by: George Tomezsko on June 9, 2007 12:42
When left wingers like Colgan have to resort to playing the "slavery card" in 2007, you can be pretty sure the Supreme Court got it exactly right.
Posted by: when in doubt, cry slavery on June 9, 2007 15:57
Mr. Coleman,
as an average person, not to familiar with legal-speak and the dynamics involved in the courts, I fear that perhaps you give too much credit to the Dems. (I am a registered Dem) The idea that the Democratic Party can actually get together on anything and work in unison to accomplish anything substantial is too far fetched for my simple imagination.
where is today's Harry Truman?
Posted by: evolo on June 9, 2007 20:58
The "only strike at fundamental rights" that's going on is from the far-left wingers like Flavia who want special rights if you have the political correct skin-color.
What part of EQUAL in the Equal Rights Amendment don't these liberal idiots understand?
Reserving spots for less-qualified persons or groups (quotas) based on their political correct skin-color, is not "equal rights". Admitting less-qualified SAT score applicants who have the politically correct skin-color to colleges, and rejecting more qualified and higher SAT scoring applicants who don't have the politically correct skin-color, is not "equal rights". You liberal far-lefties should try reading Dr. Martin Luther Kings "I have a dream" speech. There's nothing in there about getting special rights that are only given to some Americans but not others.
Posted by: on June 10, 2007 19:42
What a travesty. If you receive a paycheck that was unfairly reduced due to discrimination, it's obvious that you should have a cause of action, and the statute of limitations should begin at that time. I guess having your day in court is a little too much to ask these days.
Posted by: JSM on June 11, 2007 14:22
Democratic Presidents do not guarantee that the quality of the judges or justices appointed will be superior, nor is it true that Republicans will appoint justices of an inferior grade. Lyndon Johnson appointed Abe Fortas to the high court, one of the few justices in recent memory to have been forced to resign in disgrace. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the bench who (perhaps to the President's everlasting chagrin) became a motivating force in the civil rights movement.
Similarly, Kennedy appointed Justice White, one of only two justices to dissent from Roe (to his everlasting honor.)
So comments such as "This just underscores the need to get a Democrat in the White House who will appoint fair judges who make decisons based on data and well established values rather their ideological predilictions," while heartfelt, may not be completely accurate. Party affiliation is not a good predictor of performance, nor is it a measure of character.
Posted by: Christine on June 11, 2007 15:17
If there is one reason alone to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee in 2008 it is to protect our individual rights from the United States Supreme Court. The courts of our nation were created to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Bush appointees glorify the tyranny of the powerful and the majority.
Posted by: Steve Urbanski on June 12, 2007 23:04
arn, you are a very strange cat indeed. I suggest you step away from the computers at the public library and hang out at the bus stop talking to yourself like normal...
ahh, felt good.
Now, Democrats over Republican's to ensure a good healthy reading of the Consitution? Not so sure as Christine pointed out...but it is a better chance as Steve notes.
JSM gives a good suggestion. The remedy has been cut at the knees by this junky reading by those wierd constructionist.
Look, nobody promised us a perfect government. There's going to be screwups, loop holes, and opinions. Like elbows and ^&^(*&^&....everyone has one and some opinions carry more weight than others...
But we do the best we can and RESPECT each others opinions,...except for Arn's..he's a weirdo...but we respect the opinions and do what we can to change them. A dem in 2008 makes the most sense.
Flavia, good reading of what went down at the Supreme Court. Thanks for keeping us in the know.
Posted by: bw on June 19, 2007 13:50