The Democrats put Lilly Ledbetter on the dais tonight. She is complaining because the Supreme Court ruled according to the law.
A very brief synopsis, because that's all that's required: the law says you must file your complaint within six months of the discriminatory act. Ledbetter's complaint did not include any allegation of discriminatory acts in the prior six months. Therefore, there is no valid legal complaint. Period, end of story.
Ledbetter says she supports Obama because he would appoint judges who would have ruled in her favor, that is, in violation of the law. And she is getting applauded for it.
Not that this should surprise anyone at all, because we all know the Democratic Party doesn't care about what the law actually says. The do not believe in the rule of law, but the rule of men.
Oh, and then she complained that the Democratic-controlled Senate wouldn't rewrite the law.
Now, I may be in favor of the law change she wants. I don't know, I'd need to look at it more closely. But there's no possible way I could ever be on her side on the legal issue, because this would require me to abandon my belief, the American belief, in the rule of law.
And if you don't know why the rule of law is important, I won't explain it all here, except to say that adherence to the law is all that's protecting our rights from being completely ignored by any government that simply wishes to abridge them. Rule of law is required in any democratic republic as the primary means of protecting our rights.
That so many Democrats, including Obama, don't believe in this is reason enough to oppose him and his party. No issue is more fundamental to liberty.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 26, 2008 09:20 PM | Email ThisWhat's the alternative? Violating the law and throwing the separation of powers under the bus. This is what the Democratic Party, literally, is advocating.
Assuming that she would need to sue in 1979 when she's been continuously underpaid for decades... completely nonsensical, and not in the slightest bit related to "the rule of law".
So? You are advocating only that the law should change, not that the court decision was wrong.
Sure, close doesn't count; the majority defines what the law means. But opponents aren't saying anyone should break the law; they're criticizing the conservative majority for not recognizing reality when they do their job of interpreting the law. They can say this without opposing the Rule of Law, the American Way, and Liberty. Geez.
And they certainly can favor changing the law to be fair, and criticize Republicans for blocking the change (which the Senate voted 56-42 to begin considering, but they needed 60 votes; only 6 Republicans were in favor). The Senate has a Democratic majority, but clearly you are wrong to say that it's "Democratic-controlled" given the Senate's procedural rules. This is an argument the Democrats can make for why voters, or at least those concerned about fairness, should give them a stronger majority.
Posted by: Bruce on August 26, 2008 11:42 PMSince this decision was 5-4, are you saying those 4 justices "ruled in violation of the law"? Did the EEOC also violate the law by initially ruling in her favor? Should all the EEOC members and those 4 justices be arrested for violating the law?
You are arrogantly self-righteous in twisting anything you don't like into an attack on law and liberty. It's your blog, so I'm sure you'll continue doing this and my options are limited to arguing back or going away. But your debate technique is illogical, obnoxious, unlikely to sway anyone, and likely to deter enlightening debate.
Posted by: Bruce on August 26, 2008 11:56 PMwould you like to comment on the following 'republicans and the rule of law':
torture and waterboarding;
suspension of habeaus corpus:
partisan affilation as a criteria for selection to the doj.
didn't think so.
Before you argue - indeed, assuming you wish to do so - the only way you can win such an argument is to rationalize why the law shouldn't apply in your specific scenario. Exactly the same rationalizations offered by Democrats.
I wish I could just erase both parties and start over with people who can imagine freedom that is based on the idea of property rights.
By the way - I've been guilty of arguing for the rule of subjective law instead of objective law in the past, actually on both sides of the fence depending on subject and mood. Although I'm ashamed of this, I'm at least willing to admit that was wrong.
Anyway, have a good evening. Work is coming early.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 27, 2008 12:15 AMobama graduated from harvard law and taught at the university of chicago school of law. what are your legal credentials?
just because you have access to the web and a keyboard and the first amendment doesn't mean you have any credibility to state:
That so many Democrats, including Oobama, don't believe in [protecting our rights].
you have NO idea what obama thinks on this matter. quit pretending you do.
this is amateur hour.
Posted by: dinesh on August 27, 2008 12:48 AM++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
O-my G*d, here were go again Mr.Biden. LOL
I'm smarter than you.
Keep smacking Pudge. We can all see it's working.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 27, 2008 06:26 AMSo she wasn't given a merit raise in 1997 or 1998 (hence the word merit) after Goodyear adopted its "performance-based" pay system. No employer is required to render such a raise just because she has been employed since 1979. I can only surmise that she was likely, at best, an average performer in her Managerial position to which I'm sure we've all encountered in our employment experience at one time or another. The one you shake your head at and wonder how the hell they achieved their position without being in possession of incriminating photos of the CEO at a past company Christmas party.
According to this article in Law.com,
...Ledbetter did not seek review of the holdings that there was insufficient evidence of discrimination with respect to the 1997 and 1998 pay decisions, did not seek review of the dismissal of her EPA claim, did not ask the Court to decide whether the 180 days should begin to run only after the plaintiff discovered the discriminatory effect of the cumulative pay decisions and had apparently never argued that Goodyear initially adopted its performance-based pay system in order to discriminate on the basis of sex and that Goodyear later applied such a system to her within the charging period with discriminatory animus. All of those arguments foregone by Ledbetter may have fared better with the Supreme Court majority.
It's pretty clear to me that Ms. Ledbetter's counsel was almost as ineffective at his/her job as Ms. Ledbetter was at hers with Goodyear.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 27, 2008 06:48 AMWrong: Ledbetter's complaint did include allegations of discriminatory acts in the prior six months -- namely that they paid her too little.
Let's back up a bit. Her complaint had two elements: first, that each paycheck was a separate act of discrimination; second, that the denial of her raise was a separate act of discrimination. What she did NOT do, despite Ginsburg's insistence otherwise, was claim that there was a single wrong consisting of a succession of acts.
As Alito said, "A disparate-treatment claim comprises two elements: an employment practice, and discriminatory intent." So because her complaint framed these as separate acts, it NECESSARILY means that she has to show intent FOR each of the acts, but her complaint only pointed to the intent of the original act that set her on that path.
The legal question was whether the law considers those discriminatory payments, or just the initial discriminatory decision, to be "acts".
Incorrect. If that were the case, then she obviously loses, since she did not supply any evidence of intent.
The Senate has a Democratic majority, but clearly you are wrong to say that it's "Democratic-controlled" given the Senate's procedural rules.
No, I am not. This is a myth both parties tell, that you need 60 votes. It's not true. There are plenty of ways to move forward with it, but because of a sense of "decorum" they do not.
Since this decision was 5-4, are you saying those 4 justices "ruled in violation of the law"?
Yes. Absolutely.
Did the EEOC also violate the law by initially ruling in her favor?
They ruled in violation of the law. That's not the same thing as violating the law.
The law is clear. They ignored the law, ruling instead to substitute their judgment for what they wanted the law to be.
You are arrogantly self-righteous in twisting anything you don't like into an attack on law and liberty.
No, I am not.
It's your blog
I have no "blog."
But your debate technique is illogical, obnoxious, unlikely to sway anyone, and likely to deter enlightening debate.
Yeah, pointing out facts is illogical, and pointing out facts you dislike is obnoxious. Yawn.
I agree with the original post. It would have been perhaps less... I can't think of a word besides hypocritical... to point out that neither Republicans (perhaps a vocal minority at a minimum) or Democrats seem to believe in the rule of law for reasons previously mentioned in this thread.
I disagree. That's not to say Republicans are perfect, but I entirely disagree that our worldview is in any opposition to the rule of law. The Democratic Party worldview is.
You should know, as I have discussed with you before, that I disagree with the Bush administration on many of the legal points you do. I know the GOP isn't perfect. But with the GOP, you can at least have a legal argument, point out the facts, and hope to win by legal logic. This is not possible with the Democratic Party.
Before you argue - indeed, assuming you wish to do so - the only way you can win such an argument is to rationalize why the law shouldn't apply in your specific scenario.
Hm? Which scenario? I have never argued that the law shouldn't apply in ANY scenario. This is one of my (perhaps few) virtues. That's not to say I am always correct in my interpretation of the law, but the proper application of the actual written law is always my goal.
pudge: would you like to comment on the following 'republicans and the rule of law':
Gladly.
torture and waterboarding;
What about it? Find me a law that is being violated, and show me where it is being violated. There was NEVER any legalized torture. Certain methods were legal -- which no longer are -- because of disagreement over whether those methods constituted torture. In the end, when it was hashed out whether or not those methods were torture, those methods deemed to be torture were eliminated. This is following the rule of law.
You will not find the party, or Republicans in general, saying "we don't care what the law says, we'll torture them as we like." That isn't happening. THAT is what would show a disrespect for the rule of law. That is what Democrats do.
suspension of habeaus corpus:
The only violation here was, as ruled by the Supreme Court, a difference of interpretation of a very vague portion of the Constitution: specifically, did the new procedures set up in the MCA of 2006 provide for sufficient rights to meet the constitutional provision of habeas?
The Court NEVER ruled that the suspension of statutory habeas rights was illegal or unconstitutional or violated the rule of law in any way. It ruled that what replaced that was not constitutionally sufficient. So this was not a matter of disagreeing with the rule of law, but disagreeing over Constitutional interpretation, where the Constitution is not at all clear.
It's not appropriate to put in this in the "rule of law" category, especially when you consider that the clear intent of the MCA of 2006 was to provide a constitutionally valid replacement for the statutory habeas rights.
partisan affilation as a criteria for selection to the doj.
This was something not backed by the party, of course. If you think I in any way said or implied that Republicans never break the law, or favor the ignoring of law, then you're wrong. It appears that some people in the DOJ did violate the law that disallows partisan criteria in hiring, and they should be punished for that, but it is wholly unfair to say that this represents the view of Republicans in general, or the Republican Party.
didn't think so.
You're wrong, as usual.
obama graduated from harvard law and taught at the university of chicago school of law. what are your legal credentials?
Yawn. Elitist drivel. Law is something anyone can do if they're even moderately clever and diligent. Richard Pope is a lawyer, and I've smacked him down on legal issues on multiple occasions. Simply having a JD after your name doesn't mean you're good at the law, and, in fact, James Madison himself said that the Constitution was written so that any layman could understand it. A democracy that common people can't fathom without a lawyer is no democracy at all.
Question: if Obama knows the Constitution so well, why did he say the obviously unconstitutional DC gun ban was constitutional? And then why did he suddenly switch and say he agreed with the decision that ruled it unconstitutional? Frankly, it appears as though he didn't understand either the Second Amendment OR the Heller decision, but since he graduated Havard Law and taught at U of Chicago, we should instead assume he was just lying in one or both of those statements.
just because you have access to the web and a keyboard and the first amendment doesn't mean you have any credibility to state: That so many Democrats, including Oobama, don't believe in [protecting our rights].
Correct. I can do that because I have the ability -- like most people here, and unlike you -- to see what they say and analyze it.
you have NO idea what obama thinks on this matter. quit pretending you do.
Of course I do. In fact, I know it. When asked which judges he liked the best, he named off all four judges who ruled that the law does not matter, who did so not just in this case, but in many cases before. Hell, Justice Breyer wrote a whole book explaining WHY HE IGNORES THE CONSTITUTION. Yes, he really did, it's called "Active Liberty." It's a blueprint for fascism. And as Obama DID have a law degree and teach law, he cannot claim ignorance of such things, as you can.
this is amateur hour.
Ever since you got here, yeah.
I'm not even saying I disagree with the Supreme Court's opinion. But given that the Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution (and the constitutionality of state actions), I think its a little hyperbolic to say that Ledbetter was advocating ignoring the rule of law. Her argument was legitimate enough to go through the courts all the way up to the Supremes -- and an interesting enough controversy to be granted cert by the Supremes themselves.
Having said that -- the whole "Obama's from Harvard, you're not, so he's right" is NOT an argument. I've worked with some brilliant lawyers who came from low-tier law schools, and I've met some well-meaning buffoons from Ivy League law schools. And I've known a few non-lawyers who grasp legal concepts as well or better than many attorneys. Pudge seems pretty perceptive and sharp; he's as entitled to analyze Supreme Court decisions as a professor from Yale.
Posted by: zeeb on August 27, 2008 09:53 AMI don't think anyone has really addressed one of the arguments posted above
I did! Above, @11.
if the woman is suing based on discriminatory low pay, isn't it rational to think that she can sue based on any instance of that pay (like a subsequent paycheck), and not just the first one?
Not according to the law, no. Again: "A disparate-treatment claim comprises two elements: an employment practice, and discriminatory intent." To claim that a particular instance of pay was discriminatory, she had to show discriminatory intent for that paycheck.
When does the six-month clock start ticking?
After each individual act of discrimination.
What constitutes an act?
At the very least, an employment practice that has a discriminatory intent.
The very decision to pay Ledbetter lower than comparable men, or the actual act of payment? I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
It doesn't matter. If it is the act of payment, as Ledbetter claimed, then she needed to show intent of discrimination for the act of paying. That's the law.
I don't think that advocating one position over the next is ignoring the rule of law.
Yes, it is, because the minority wanted to ignore the fact that if it is a separate act, then intent for that separate act was required.
I think its a little hyperbolic to say that Ledbetter was advocating ignoring the rule of law.
I disagree. Her position clearly advocates for ignoring the fact that she is required by law to show intent for each separate act of discrimination, and that each act had to have been fewer than 180 days prior to her complaint.
Her argument was legitimate enough to go through the courts all the way up to the Supremes -- and an interesting enough controversy to be granted cert by the Supremes themselves.
The first part is easily explained: the lower court didn't do its job. The second part is, too: the higher court wanted to fix the lower court's error.
this is illogical--keep yawning:
"The Court NEVER ruled that the suspension of statutory habeas rights was illegal or unconstitutional or violated the rule of law in any way. It ruled that what replaced that was not constitutionally sufficient."
what is the difference between "unconstitutional" and "not constitutionally sufficient"?
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 08:53 PM"The Court NEVER ruled that the suspension of statutory habeas rights was illegal or unconstitutional or violated the rule of law in any way. It ruled that what replaced that was not constitutionally sufficient."
what is the difference between "unconstitutional" and "not constitutionally sufficient"?
I was talking about two different things: the act of suspending statutory habeas rights for alien unlawful enemy combatants (not unconstitutional), and what those rights were replaced with (declared unconstitutional).
The point is simply that, obviously, you CAN suspend statutory habeas rights. There's nothing wrong with that. The whole part of the law that most people point to as so wrong -- the explicit rejection of habeas corpus for AUECs -- is just fine.
But it has to be replaced with something. I called it "not constitutionally sufficient" not because it has a different meaning than "unconstitutional" but because it has a different connotation: agains, it is not the act of replacing that is wrong, it is what was used to replace it.
I hope that clears up some facts for you.
you don't understand the legal process. the supreme court of the united states, as with any appellate court, does not review questions of fact, but rather appellate review is limited to questions of law.
so, since you yawn when confronted with challenges to your legal creditials,
i ask you, again, to differentiate between:
what is the difference between "unconstitutional" and "not constitutionally sufficient"?
this is a question of LAW, not a question of FACT.
perhaps you should quit posting and start reading.
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 10:04 PMthe supreme court ruled that the military tribunals established by this president VIOLATED the constitution (i.e, were unconstitutional, or in your vernacular "were not constitutionally sufficient").
your devolution to "fact" based analysis is simply a resort to a procedure approach NOT taken by this republican administration.
here's a yes or no question. is waterborarding torture?
yes or no?
you don't understand the legal process.
Incorrect.
the supreme court of the united states, as with any appellate court, does not review questions of fact, but rather appellate review is limited to questions of law.
So? I never said they did.
i ask you, again, to differentiate between: what is the difference between "unconstitutional" and "not constitutionally sufficient"?
Ummmmm. I already answered you. I said a. that I used those about two different things, and b. they are not different in denotation, but only in connotation, depending on the context.
Can yoy not read?
perhaps you should quit posting and start reading.
That's my line.
the supreme court ruled that the military tribunals established by this president VIOLATED the constitution
Yes, but NOT that suspending stautory habeas violated the Constitution. You brought up the suspension of habeas corpus, and I pointed out the fact that this act WAS NOT ruled to be unconstitutional.
here's a yes or no question. is waterborarding torture?
I don't know. I don't care, either. McCain thinks so, and so do many other people I respect, so if I had to say one way or the other, I'd say yes. But as I don't have to, I won't. This means nothing to me.
bush's process was unconstitutional. violation of the constitution. violation of the rule of law.
1 more time.
is waterboarding torture?
yes or no.
for a guy who is posting about "the rule of law", this should be a question you, mr. yawn, mr. i can take on a harvard law graduate, YES OR NO? or is this a question of law or fact?
so, the rule of law means nothing to you b/c it's against the law to torture.
so quit using 'the rule of law' as a weapon and start walking the walk.
as the saying goes, bulls*** talks.
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 10:26 PM"they are not different in denotation, but only in connotation, depending on the context."
i've never read about this standard in the law, denotation v. conotation, depending on the context. is this a postmodern, lit crit approach?
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 10:32 PMDo you have a point? I don't see one. I said this, unequivocally, with my very first mention of it. (Although it wasn't Bush's process, it was Congress'.) As I noted, this is not evidence that anyone was ignoring or disregards the rule of law, but only that the Court found that the WAY they were TRYING to follow the rule of law was wrong.
That said, there are plenty of other examples of disregarding the rule of law. McCain-Feingold IMO is one of them, which McCain sponsored and Bush signed. You could arguably include warrantless wiretapping in there, though that's a less clear case.
But pointing out examples of Bush or Republicans disregarding the rule of law means nothing to my point, which, again, is that the Democrats DO NOT RECOGNIZE the legitimacy of the rule of law.
For example, I can point to DOMA and say, look, DOMA is not right, because the 14th Amendment says "full faith and credit," and most Republicans will say, OK, fine, let's amend the Constitution. But if I say to Democrats, the DC gun ban is not right because it violates the Constitution, most of them will reply, "well, that was written over 200 years ago."
This is the difference. Republicans can at least have a discussion about what the law says, and conclude that the law should be followed. Democrats cannot even do that, unless they just happen to agree with the law in the first place.
so, the rule of law means nothing to you b/c it's against the law to torture.
You didn't ask about the rule of law, you asked if it is torture. Please do not lie. I know it is hard for you to not lie, but really, you should work on it.
If waterboarding is torture, it absolutely should be banned, because that is what the law says. That is what following the rule of law means, and I support it. I am not saying I do not care if the law is followed. I am simply saying I do not know whether it is torture, and I do not care. Other people can worry about that. I can't figure out everything, and for the things I do not figure out, I don't try to pick sides.
so quit using 'the rule of law' as a weapon and start walking the walk.
As soon as you provide me with a single example of me not favoring following the rule of law, or being against following the rule of law, then you might not look like an idiot by saying such a thing.
is this a variation on "i didn't inhale"? "they are not different in denotation, but only in connotation, depending on the context."
No. Do you not know what those words mean? I know they are kind big ...
quit with the childish taunts. you are a partisan hack. dems are back, republicans are great. they are with god, truth and justice. dems are bad, evil and liars.
now, do you feel better. good. have some warm milk and go to bed. don't forget to say your prayers and floss.
you lack credibility, but you have successfully drafted on stefan's good work.
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 11:13 PMUm. I gave you reasoned answers to your mostly incoherent comments. You then respond, "quit with the childish taunts," while proceeding to ignore my answers and engage in ... childish taunts.
Are you drunk?
"that the Democrats DO NOT RECOGNIZE the legitimacy of the rule of law."
are you so stupid as to believe that adherence to the rule of law is a partisan matter?
apparently, yes.
so if i posit 1 fact that disputes this crack-induced hyperbole, what will that do to your position?
here's 1 fact: after bush v. gore, al gore conceded, while disagreeing with decision.
per your stupid argument, either: 1) gore is not a democrat; 2) concession after the decision was not a recognition of the rule of law; or 3) you are a partisan hack, full of sh**.
are you so stupid as to believe that adherence to the rule of law is a partisan matter?
You are so stupid that you think that I was talking about adherence to the rule of law. I was talking about recognizing that the rule of law has primacy.
Are you not a native English speaker?
Posted by: pudge on August 28, 2008 11:45 PM