John, Sam, and Tony all seem like nice men—genial and grandfatherly, and one of them might even have a sense of humor. If they swung by I’d love to have a beer or two with them (or, more likely, a martini or scotch, served up by a second-class law school servant in a bow-tie).
On the bench, however, John, Sam, Tony and co are mortifying men (I say men because Ruth Bader Ginsburg is by far the most sensible justice currently on the Court). For example, take the recent decisions in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which told women that they have exactly 180 days after pay discrimination first occurs to get their act together and sue their employer. It doesn’t matter if the discrimination has been going on for decades, paycheck after paycheck. Never mind that the result of the discrimination add up to tens of thousands of dollars that the woman could have used to buy a string of pearls for herself or a few more six packs for her husband. (see http://www.slate.com/id/2189983/ for a hilarious recap)
This is wrong on so many different levels that I’m sure you can all figure it out on your own. I would just like to add, however, that the ineptitude of the Supreme Court does not end at Ledbetter. In the Kentucky lethal injection case (Baze v. Rees), the Chief Justice pointed out that even if a method of execution presented the risk of “severe pain,” nothing will be done unless a viable alternative to reduce the pain can be shown and implemented. Forget that other states have taken steps to reduce the possibility of state-inflicted “severe pain,” and that Kentucky is also perfectly able to do so.
Finally, we have the Indiana voter ID case (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board), where Justice Stevens put the burden on challengers of voter ID laws to prove that a history of voter fraud warrants changing current Indiana electoral laws. Despite the fact that voter discrimination is nearly impossible to prove, and such ID laws place the burden on poor and minority voters (even Richard Posner acknowledged this), the U.S. government will continue to uphold such laws. After all, keeping low-income minority voters from accessing the ballot boxes during election years is what democracy is all about.
We see through you, Supreme Court! We know that you pick the outcomes you like and then bend the law to achieve the outcome. If you’re going to hand down stupid decisions, however, please don’t use whacked up reasoning. (and also, less fractured decisions tend to help too—please see Chief Justice Warren’s artful maneuverings in Brown v. Board of Education for inspiration and/or common sense). You know things are going badly when I feel nostalgia for the Rehnquist Era.
