Skip to main content

Elections Have Consequences

Can somebody tell me again why Democrats and progressives continue to speak about the Supreme Court only within the framework of Roe vs. Wade?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue
their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4
decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said
the ruling ignored workplace realities.

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear
Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same
management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues,
including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a
career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s

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. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the
effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent
to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

From 2001 to 2006, workers brought nearly 40,000 pay discrimination
cases. Many such cases are likely to be barred by the court’s
interpretation of the requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 that employees make their charge within 180 days “after the
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”

Workplace experts said the ruling would have broad ramifications and would narrow the legal options of many employees.

There's a good chance the next president will be nominating at least two judges to the court, or possibly more that could end up altering the entire balance of the court. The Dems on the trail might think to mention that to folks. It's important.

We've seen the perils of relying on the outside groups (Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way) and senators to do a competent job on this: one, two.