jillian
Princess
Front page of Drudge Report!
UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...
DRUDGE REPORT 2011®
And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!
I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!
I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!
But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!
So, what will be the flip flop on these?
I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.
So, which flip flop will we get on this one?
I can't wait to hear!
![]()
you're right... you should celebrate a case that says a chain is "too big to be sued for discrimination".
i think it suits the rightwingnuts.
and it wasn't quite unanimous. from your link:
By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.
so given that it appears the most important part of the case split on party lines, i'm not quite sure how you see the decision as unanimous. THAT was the relevant part... at least to anyone who actually is interested in corporations not being able to discriminate.
Here again we have the same liberal spin.
Ignore the fact the decision was UNANIMOUS to focus on the disagreement on how the case should proceed.
Typical!
that isn't "liberal spin". it is how people read cases.
at least anyone who actually knows how to read a case. how the case should proceed is what is relevant to anyone interested in anti-discrimination laws.
it's the rightwingnut loons who try to portray things as black and white because their ability to analyze is impaired.