Supreme Court Reaches Decision About Issue In Case

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, it seems that our faith in our judicial system got slapped back down to Earth again today.

 

The Supreme Court decided that age discrimination laws ONLY protect older workers from age discrimination. It does not protect YOUNGER workers. Or, as Souter wrote, "...talk about discrimination because of age is naturally understood to refer to discrimination against the older."

 

General Dynamics had a policy of providing full health coverage for all employees after retirement. They recently decided to change that policy and provide it ONLY for employees currently over the age of 50. Workers under the age of 50, of course, filed a suit and the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, sided WITH the company.

 

Now, I did read bits of Souter's decision --- but to me, this makes no sense whatsoever. If a bill bars age discrimination --- it can't be a one-way street. It'd be like having a racial discrimination law that permitted blacks to oppress whites. It'd be like having a sexual discrimination law that permitted women to discriminate against men.

 

It seems COMPLETELY contradictory to both the law's meaning and the basic tenets of the U.S Constitution.

 

Combine this with the completely illogical ruling allowing the Campaign Finance Bill to become law and I can't explain what the heck the Supreme Court is doing nowadays.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

It'd be like having a racial discrimination law that permitted blacks to oppress whites. It'd be like having a sexual discrimination law that permitted women to discriminate against men.

Thought we had these already. Affirmative action? Calling intercourse "rape" if the girl isn't enjoying it?

[Highland 0]

We have it here too, it's called reverse discrimination, but the courts and tribunals that are supposed to protect our rights do not consider it discrimination if a member of a perceived majority (read: white male) is the one being discriminated against. I'm not surprised that it happens in America.

[Guest MikeSC]

It'd be like having a racial discrimination law that permitted blacks to oppress whites. It'd be like having a sexual discrimination law that permitted women to discriminate against men.

Thought we had these already. Affirmative action? Calling intercourse "rape" if the girl isn't enjoying it?

I'm trying to be less partisan and to do less "flame baiting"

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It'd be like having a racial discrimination law that permitted blacks to oppress whites. It'd be like having a sexual discrimination law that permitted women to discriminate against men.

Thought we had these already. Affirmative action? Calling intercourse "rape" if the girl isn't enjoying it?

I'm trying to be less partisan and to do less "flame baiting"

-=Mike

Who was that real whackjob femnazi from the early 90s that said all sex was rape?

[Guest MikeSC]

It'd be like having a racial discrimination law that permitted blacks to oppress whites. It'd be like having a sexual discrimination law that permitted women to discriminate against men.

Thought we had these already. Affirmative action? Calling intercourse "rape" if the girl isn't enjoying it?

I'm trying to be less partisan and to do less "flame baiting"

-=Mike

Who was that real whackjob femnazi from the early 90s that said all sex was rape?

MacKinnon, I think. Prof at Univ. of Michigan.

 

Then again, she is the woman a lot of people base their assumptions about militant feminists (women so ugly and unappealing that nobody wants to touch them) about.

-=Mike