Thursday, March 31, 2005

SCOTUS Unbound


Headline in the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette:

"Deliberate bias not needed to win age discrimination suits"


Does bias no longer require some tiny bit of intent? If not, what distinguishes it from "bsai"; i.e., random anagrams?

According to AARP senior attorney Laurie McCann, even evidence is a questionable concept:.
“This is a major boost for the fight to eliminate age discrimination in the workplace. Evidence that an employer is intentionally out to get older workers is very hard to come by.”
When was the evidentiary requirement modified by "too hard to get"? Maybe she means, "if it's non-existent, we need friendly judges"?

Full article here.

We can be thankful that the French have finally realized the folly of their law prohibiting a work week longer than 35 hours, lest Justices Breyer and Kennedy make it US law. But what is this about?
"The Supreme Court made it easier Wednesday for any worker older than 40 to allege age discrimination, ruling employers can be held liable even if they never intended any harm."
[
Emphasis mine]
It really is time we took a hard look at all the Constitutionally provided methods for reining in the judiciary. For those of you who don't know, this ranges from Congress' ability to define the court system - length of term, for example; or as FDR demonstrated, the number of SCOTUS judges - through impeachment to Constitutional Amendment.

No comments: