UPDATE: For full enjoyment of this post, please listen to this cheesy midi while reading!
(The following occurred on Monday. Or Tuesday. I think. It's hard to remember.)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. Morning of day 3 at the lake. The sky is clear. The temperature perfect. Birds singing. The coffee hot. And the morning poop was glorious. I think I shall sip on my coffee outside while the kids still sleep.
Lo! What's this! Someone has abandoned today's Milwaukee Jenitel on this picnic bench. Why I believe I shall peruse its pages while I enjoy my morning coffee. It's been ages since I have taken in the hometown paper.
Ah. What have we here? It appears to be a guest commentary from some writer of whom I have heretofore never heard. Perhaps it is the Jenitel's version of Jim Boyd's "codpieces". I think I shall read this piece. Vacation has been perfect so far. What could possibly go wrong now?
Often you can sum up the collective actions of the Supreme Court under a particular chief justice with one word. The Warren court will always be remembered as liberal, the Burger court as pragmatic, the Rehnquist court as conservative, and the Roberts court in a short time has already earned its moniker: mean.
Uh oh. This isn't starting well. When you begin referring to the Highest court in the land using a pejorative normally reserved for use by put upon 5th graders, things do not augur well...
The addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the heartless duo of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas has cemented a plurality for cruelty.
I'm starting to get a headache...
If there's a choice between casting their lot with the little guy and tipping a case toward compassion, or putting a foot on his throat, it's a safe bet that these four will be getting out their boots.
I'm not sure if this person's heard, but "compassion" and "justice" are two very different things. The later is the job of the courts.
Thomas and Scalia are the guys who said in a dissent that a prison guard kicking and punching a prisoner to the extent that he suffered a split lip and loosened teeth didn't amount to cruel treatment under the Constitution. To them it was a case of "insignificant harm."
Hmmm. Why there's that eagle again, majestically soaring overhead; searching for its prey without the tiniest hint of context, let alone a citation. God, how I do love this place.
Now we see that Roberts and Alito are cut from the same razor wire, and when Justice Anthony Kennedy joins them its a winning hand for corporate interests, big government and persecutors everywhere.
YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!! Hot coffee in the crotch HURTS!!!!!!
I shall shake my fist in the air while I shout "Damn you vile, talking-point-barfing bitch! Damn you to hell!!!"
Just imagine the amount of rotting snakes, snails and puppy dog tails it took for these five men to rule against Lilly Ledbetter, a woman who suffered years of pay discrimination as a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. When Ledbetter retired after 19 years, she had a salary that was $6, 700 lower than that of the worst paid male of the same rank.
The right thing would have been for the court to recognize that every slighted paycheck Ledbetter received was another incident of discrimination. That would have allowed the six-month clock for filing a sex discrimination complaint under Title VII to begin anew every payday, and it would have allowed Ledbetter's trial court victory to stand.
Apparently in this universe, "ability to read a statute" = "mean". And why did Congress even put in that limitations provision in in the first place? Are there that many people that get paid semiannually?
Damn my crotch hurts.
But the court majority went another route, one that is so far from understanding the world of work that it seems purposely blind. It said that she was out of luck because she didn't file a discrimination complaint within 180 days of the original sexist decisions to grant her lower raises than her male peers. Even if she didn't know her colleagues' salaries, it was up to her to intuit that she was being cheated and take quick action, or her employer gets off scot free.
OK. Coffee's mopped up. My shriek awakened Moonchild. And I have more than a strong suspicion that this flake would not have done well on the easiest bar exam ever.
Now Kennedy, Roberts and Alito are joining them in a ruling that is certain to impact the makeup of juries by making them more likely to vote for death. In Uttecht vs. Brown, the high court allowed a trial court to disqualify a potential juror from a death penalty case because his support for the death penalty was not unqualified.
Because it's good public policy to empanel jurors who would refuse to uphold the law.
Listen lady, your quarrel is with the legislature that enacted the death penalty, not with the courts.
You do know the difference between the legislature and the courts, don't you?
Of course you don't. You're a moron. But maybe if you pulled your enormous cranium out of your gigantic -
Oh great - Moonchild is out of bed and throwing rocks at me.
Anyway, I find it more than a little odd that someone who has big big problems with wiretapping phone calls from known al Quaeda (I'm assuming - safely) would vest so much power in the one branch of government whose officials are not elected.
Really. Think about it.
Oh, of course she won't. She's a moron.
So far, there is so little daylight between Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia that we should refer to the group as the RATS Pack. I wonder which powerless litigant they'll chew up next?
Hey! Moonchild. Heave another rock at the Old Man's melon!
Nope. I still remember this piece of crap column. My vacation is ruined.