The Supreme Court of the United States - Articles - Zimbio

Supreme Court Sides With State in Ohio Voter Case -- But Is This Really a "Victory"?

Thu, 17 Oct 2008 16:36:00 GMT

posted by damitajo1

The tight election contest in Ohio took another turn today, when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a temporary restraining order that required the state to produce a list of new voter registrants whose registration materials contain personal information that conflicts with data maintained in other state databases. The now-vacated order compelled the state to produce the data today.

The litigation centers around the "Help America Vote Act," which provides, in part, that state voting officials match information in voter registration files with information in motor vehicle databases in order to ensure the accuracy of voter lists. The Court's ruling, however, does not decide whether or not Ohio has in fact violated the federal statute. Instead, the Court concluded that regardless of the legality of the state's policy, it was unlikely that the Republican Party could prevail on its argument that the statute authorizes lawsuits by private individuals to enforce its terms. Technically, this is a procedural ruling that simply removes the temporary restraining order. So, the case could resume in the lower court, and the parties could submit more legal arguments on the question of a private right of action, but none of the news articles on this matter indicates what the parties will choose to do.

"Victory" for Democrats Based on Conservative Case Law
Ironically, the Court's ruling relies upon highly criticized conservative case law in which the Court curbed access to the courts by civil rights plaintiffs. One of the cases involved a challenge to an Alabama law establishing an "English-Only" policy for driver's license testing. The Court held that even if the policy has a negative impact on Latinos, only the federal government could bring a suit challenging the law as national origin or racial discrimination due to its detrimental effect. The case -- Alexander v. Sandoval -- was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, whom liberals despise.

Consequently, I have mixed feelings about the ruling. On the one hand, Republicans can now taste the impact of their efforts to curb "excessive" litigation (translation: any civil rights litigation or personal injury suits). But I really do not want to validate those precedents, especially in the area of voting rights. Although the Democrats won this round, they do so by legitimating conservative Court doctrine.

Supreme Court Tells Women to Bend Over

Wed, 31 May 2007 16:23:00 GMT

posted by beckychr007

Listen up girls, the Supremes have made it official-- being nice is not really the way to go. I may have to burn my bra.

If you’ve been working a while, and get a sense there may be some disparity in the way you are being treated or paid --don't give the blokes the benefit of the doubt--you have to trot down and file a discrimination claim. Otherwise you be fucked.

The Supreme Court has ruled if there is a disparity in the amount women and the guys are being paid they must file a claim within one hundred and eighty days or the claim is lost forever.

So I guess it is best you go around and ask all of your fellow employees for copies of their pay stubs. But if you've been working at the same place for a while, and never bothered to make this typical request, too bad . Just bend over. Oh that’s right--you're already in that ladylike position.

It would be fun to turn the tables:

Think Scalia would like that?

Many federal courts had taken the common sense approach the 180 day claim period in the law started anew at each pay period. But not the top court.

The issue arose out of the claim of a woman who for twenty years was a supervisor in a Goodyear plant. She was the only female among a group of 16 management level employees. Because she was not snoopy, and did not want to file a legal claim just cos she thought Goodyear might be screwing her over, the claim is lost forever. And that sucks cos she has been underpaid the whole time she was employed there.

So no more being a nice girl and holding out waiting to see if there is a pattern of discrimination or any type of concrete proof. Maybe, since it is the rule women are generally not paid fairly and equally, they should just automatically file a claim each pay period.

Everyone is always, rightly, decrying frivolous lawsuits. But what can you do when judges persist in being boneheads?

This is also sexist BS. Its the usual thing of "show me the exact moment you were discriminated against.” And then, in the absence of a defining moment like a chase around the office desk, the boys come back "you women--just always want to bitch and moan."

I best remove my panties now.

They’re thoroughly knotted up.

Legalizing Gay Marriage

Thu, 16 May 2008 02:50:00 GMT

posted by CORDave
If you're in the gay community or are a friend of the gays, this is the biggest news of the year so far (or maybe the decade). The California State Supreme Court has ruled gay marriage is legal in the state. Even if you're not in California, this will impact you sooner than you think. California's supreme court is the nation's most influential and respected state supreme court, which means other states could soon follow.

Not only will gay marriages - not civil unions, not domestic partnerships, but marriage - be seen as early as June in California, but the court also made a decision regarding the status of gay individuals. The ruling lifts homosexuals into the same class of minority as race by adding sexual orientation to the 'equal protection' clause. In other words, the state would need very compelling reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. And by "very compelling," we mean it's nearly impossible.

What's more? California has no residency requirements to obtain a marriage license (Massachusetts does). So anyone can just show up and get married!

Welcome to our blog about The Supreme Court of the United States

Thu, 22 Dec 2006 18:23:26 GMT

posted by The_Zimbio_Team
This is our group blog, which is unique because any Zimbio member can post an entry to it. Some members blog about recent news and trends related to the portal topic, others recount relevant personal stories. You can also comment on and rate existing blog entries, to voice your opinion and to help the community identify which members and entries on the portal are must-reads. Got an interesting idea or story to share with other members of this portal? Well, then put on your journalist's cap and add your own blog entry!

Supreme Court copyright ruling invites chaos

Sun, 19 Mar 2007 15:23:51 GMT

posted by dust
The 2005 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Grokster v. MGM case is partly responsible for Viacom’s dispute with Google ending up in court, an expert on copyright law said in a Sunday opinion piece in …Comment Original post by MacCentral