They really did that?

More politics.

The intrepid Pete pointed me to this NYT article, dealing with a recent Supreme Court decision.

The back story here is that a female management-level employee at a particular Goodyear plant had been paid less than her colleagues for twenty years. Having finally found this out, she sued her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the intent of which was to prevent employers from discriminating thusly.

Though the law does say that a person has 180 days to report a violation "after the unlawful employment practice has occurred," it has traditionally been held by the federal enforcement body, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, that this is 180 days from the last incidence of discrimination. Meaning, in this case, the last paycheck where the plaintiff's employer underpaid her based on her gender.

For whatever reason this case got to the Supreme Court. Who, on Tuesday, reversed that opinion. According to the NYT:

The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set.

Meaning, after the date of their initial employment. By ruling of the five-justice conservative majority of the Supreme Court, unless you find out within 180 days after you are employed that you are being discriminated against, you have no legal recourse to force your employer to fix the matter in any way. Other than to quit.

Now, as Pete points out, that's just ludicrous. It's highly unlikely that anyone can figure out that they're being paid less than their colleageus who are doing the same work during that period. Essentially, this ruling reinterprets the law such that few people (if anyone) will meet the standard set by the court. The law cannot in practicality be enforced, and employers need not in practicality abide by it. Employers now can discriminate as much as they want, and since they likely won't be caught in time, they will get away with it scot-free.

That is, in and of itself, a travesty.

And let me get this straight, what actually happened here. The Supreme Court just ruled to reinterpret a law in a way that defeats the clear and stated intent of that law, which was to prevent workplace discrimination. If that's not "legislating from the bench" I don't know what is.

So, I can expect any time now the howls of "judicial activism" coming from the usual suspects on the right side of the isle?

...any time now...

I would also have given pandas a real thumb

Jerry Falwell is, as you might know, dead.

I could perhaps write a post opining that his death is squarely the result of his displeasing God. Since, were I God, I would certainly have been displeased by Jerry Falwell. Being, you know, pretty sure I had made it clear that people are not supposed to act that way.

However, that is not why I am writing.

I am writing because, on my way home from work this evening, I noticed that at the post office down the street from my work, the flag there...

...was flying at half-staff.

Now, a brief searching around for a reason why that might be turned up nothing...other than the suspicion that some official representing our government...everyone in America's government...had taken it upon themselves to use a public facility to express sadness at the death of Jerry Falwell. The guy who blamed the 9/11 attacks on lesbians and the ACLU. The leader of a particularly virulent and hateful minority group of ultra-conservative religious extremists.

That is, in Pete's words, too terrible to contemplate.