Wal-Mart Wins 9-0 [and so does America!]

[Marshall]

Yeah!

[gnadfly]

There's gotta be a middle ground in posting whole articles and posting so little we don't know what you're talking about.

[Sa_artman]

Originally Posted by Marshall

Yeah!

If you think Wal-Mart is patriotic, you should be lined up on a wall. Your a closet anti-American Marshall.

[Whirlaway]

He's talking about today's supreme court decision in favor of Wal-Mart. It is amazing that the justices ruled 9 to zip !

That means that even the liberals on the supreme court disagreed with the 9th circuit.

The extremists 9th circuit gets over-ruled again.

[charlestudor2005]

Emotionally, I'm with the Plaintiffs in this case. Women should not be paid less than men for doing the same job. That's the law, and no company, no matter how large, should subvert this law.

OTOH, anyone who knows anything about class action lawsuits knows this was a foregone conclusion, and legally, I agree with the Court. The class was way too large to prosecute an effective case.

It's akin to finding OJ not guilty. It means there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. Doesn't mean he is innocent of the murder.

[JONBALLS]

lawsuits should require plaintiffs to pay the fees of the defendants if found unliable.

[Whirlaway]

The SC also ruled 8-0 (Sotomayer sp???) recused on another improtant environmental case regarding clean air issues.

[Whirlaway]

CT: rational thinking was never a hurdle in the split decisions.....rarely do we see 9-0 coming from such a divided court.....it speaks to how strong Wal Marts claims were and how extreme the trail lawyers have been headed.

[TexTushHog]

The opinion isn't exactly 9-0. On one small and relatively inconsequential issue (for cases other than employment law cases) it is. On the more divisive issue concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) commonality analysis, which unfortunately effects all class actions, it divides along the predictable 5-4 party lines.

See Justice Ginsberg's partial concurrence and partial dissent, which begins at p. 32.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf

More dismantling of twentieth century jurisprudence at the hands of a relentless and viscously anti-individual rights court.

[Whirlaway]

Well see how anti-individual rights this court is (and who the judges are) when the supremes hear the challenges to Obama care that are headed their way......based on your statement TTH I presume you are in favor of throwing out the Obamacare fiasco; particularly mandated health care purchases by individuals. If there was ever an anti-indivdiual law in recent years; it is Obamacare which removes decisions on healthcare from the doctor=patient relationship and intserts government bureacrats in a signficantly greater capacity.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

...More dismantling of twentieth century jurisprudence at the hands of a relentless and viscously anti-individual rights court.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

If you think Wal-Mart is patriotic, you should be lined up on a wall. Your a closet anti-American Marshall.

It's "you're", not "your"............

Sure Wal-mart is patriotic....they are a capitalist success story that provides the goods at low prices to the people, even the low-income people.......the Founding Fathers believed capitalism was essential to liberty......everytime a Super-Wal-Mart store enters a community, the typical family of 4 in that community sees their grocery bill drop by $1000 per year....seems that Wal-Mart stops the other merchants from gouging the poor......HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

anti-American? Isn't what you meant anti-progressive? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I should be lined up on a wall? Are you saying I should be killed? We don't talk that way in this forum....I expect a moderator to be communicating with you shortly........

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

More dismantling of twentieth century jurisprudence at the hands of a relentless and viscously anti-individual rights court.

anti-individual rights?....you got it ass-backwards.....

20th century jurisprudence dismantled the American way....the 21st century jurisprudence will re-establish it....I suspect the old liberal scum on the SC enjoy their power too much and won't give it up before odumbo gets voted out of office....health issues and death will allow a conservative president to replace them with Roberts-esque justices and a lot of liberal garbage will be tossed in the dust-bin of history.....the modern conservative movement started with Goldwater, was on steroids with Reagan, had a lull and will now take off....conservatism succeeds because it is fair and jives with human nature....conservatism is MAINSTREAM!

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by JONBALLS

lawsuits should require plaintiffs to pay the fees of the defendants if found unliable.

The fear of losing would be a chilling factor for a legitimate plaintiff in filing a legitimate lawsuit. I might agree if the Court eventually found that the lawsuit was frivolous. However, even if it is unfounded at law when filed, that chilling effect should not be inherent in the system. A lot of now-valid causes of action were originally unfounded when they were first filed. Courts gave "first impression" cases validity. Some of the basics of tort law as we now know it didn't exist at common law.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

CT: rational thinking was never a hurdle in the split decisions.....rarely do we see 9-0 coming from such a divided court.....it speaks to how strong Wal Marts claims were and how extreme the trail lawyers have been headed.

You kind of blew right past the nature of the case and made an assumption (we all know about assumptions). The Wal-Mart case was never tried the merits of the case. All the hearings were about whether or not the class could be certified. Wal-Mart's "claims" weren't really that strong at all. The anecdotal evidence as presented on 60 Minutes and CNN seems to indicate that Wal-Mart did engage in severe gender discrimination. The only thing in WM's favor was that it had engaged in this discriminatory behavior for so many years against so many women in so many different situations that no class could be certified. IMHO, that is not a "strong" case in WM's favor. It is an injustice, with no penalty for WM.

[Whirlaway]

@ CT:

I didn't blow by anything; I agree the merits were based on wheter or not the class could be certified...and Wal-Marts claims were victorious, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Calvinx]

Here's the thing about this case that not everybody knows. This all started over 10 years ago when a group went around asking for people to tell their story if they felt they were ever wronged while working at Walmart. It's ambulance chasing in the new age. They were on a fishing expedition to find a case.

This law firm decided to make this case of two women and twist the data around to show Walmart discriminated against all women. That includes those (women) who worked their way up and were rightfully promoted to be vice presidents. Nobody had a chance to ask whether to be included in this case.

The ruling yesterday didn't decide whether there was wrong doing. It simply said that a class of one million women lacked sufficient commonality to be tried as one huge case. If anybody feels they were treated unfairly, they can still have their day in court as a much smaller class.


Don't worry about the named plaintiffs because they don't have to pay the law firm. Especially in this situation where they were the poster children for the law firm's campaign.

My apologies if anything came across to offend those in the legal profession because that certainly wasn't the intent. I do respect the profession and a few friends are attorneys. What I detest is the unbridled greed that drive some law firms to do things like this.