US Supreme Court Discussions

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The court announced today that it is taking on the related cases involving Trump's tax returns and financial records.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

Once they determine what cases they will take, what kind of timeline (or not) do they generally follow?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Big important cases like that invariably are not decided until the last day(s) of the term, in late June.

[RoseMorninStar]

That should be interesting.

I've read that the house could choose to censure instead of impeachment. I'm not sure what the advantage would be to that unless it is that he not be acquitted in the Senate. The whole thing has just been so bizarre with the refusals to testify/give up documents. Anyone in power could get away with anything if that becomes precedent. Congress would no longer have oversight powers as set about in our constitution. It's very frustrating.

[Impenitent]

Judge James Dannenberg's letter from the Supreme Court Bar pulls no punches.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... etter.html

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for posting that, Impy. I saw that last week. Pretty powerful stuff.

[yovargas]

Seems like the kind of thing that would have made a bit of news once upon a time, back when things like this still mattered.

[RoseMorninStar]

Seems like the kind of thing that would have made a bit of news once upon a time, back when things like this still mattered.

“It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end… because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing… this shadow. Even darkness must pass.”

Let's have hope in the wisdom of Tolkien.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't mean to be critical, because that is certainly a great quote, but I did want to point out that it isn't Tolkien.

[RoseMorninStar]

I don't mean to be critical, because that is certainly a great quote, but I did want to point out that it isn't Tolkien.

er.. Samwise. I stand corrected.

[elengil]

I don't mean to be critical, because that is certainly a great quote, but I did want to point out that it isn't Tolkien.

er.. Samwise. I stand corrected.

Wise, that Sam

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Or wise, that Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and/or Philippa Boyens, who wrote those words, based somewhat loosely on Tolkien.

[elengil]

Or wise, that Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and/or Philippa Boyens, who wrote those words, based somewhat loosely on Tolkien.

You missed the pun.

[RoseMorninStar]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not feeling very punny

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[elengil]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics ... index.html



Nothing to see here, just SCOTUS deciding that it's perfectly fine to take away your right to vote when they are offered a convenient excuse to do so. This bodes ill for November.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A decision in the fine lineage of Bush v. Gore

On a brighter note, in a decision in my area of law, the court ruled 8-1 (with only Thomas dissenting) that in age discrimination cases under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) that an employee need not prove that age was the "but-for" reason for the employer's decision in order to allege age discrimination, though proof of "but-for" causation is still necessary for most compensatory damages. This is, however, a narrow decision, and is not likely to shed light on the more momentous employment discrimination cases that the Court has on its docket, particularly the cases regarding whether sexual orientation and sexual identity can be considered protected classes with regard to employment discrimination under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act.

[Inanna]

V, explain. With examples.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In the case in question, Babb v. Wilkie, the plaintiff was a pharmacist for the Department of Veteran Affairs (Wilkie is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs), who had various claims for discrimination based on gender and age. A "but-for" causation standard would require her to prove that age was the real reason why she was disciplined and ultimately transferred to a less-desirable position. In other words that "but for" her managers would not have taken those actions. Her attorneys argued that the language of the ADEA only requires that age be some factor in the decision to take an adverse employment action (whether it be a termination, or in this case discipline and transfer). The lower courts found that because the VA was able to present legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the actions, the fact that Babb was able to present evidence of age-related comments by her supervisors was irrelevant. But the Supreme Court ruled that because the language of the ADEA specifically says "that personnel actions affecting individuals aged 40 and older “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age” that means that evidence that age was at all a motivating factor is sufficient to hold the employer liable. However, they also ruled that in order to obtain damages such as back pay, reinstatement and compensation for pain and suffering, you still would need to prove that "but for" the age discrimination the adverse employment actions would not have been taken.

[Jude]

If I'm parsing that correctly, the lower courts' ruling means that the employer is liable, but the Supreme Court's ruling means that the plaintiff gets no compensation from the employer even though they're liable. Have I got that right?