Justices have been siding with workers, underdogs
Although the Supreme Court is often viewed as pro-business and conservative, it has taken the other side in several recent cases. Observers call it a useful reminder that the court isn't predictable.
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
LA Times
March 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington
The Supreme Court, often described as conservative, divided and pro-corporate, has been sounding different notes in recent weeks.
The justices have been unanimous, or nearly so, in dealing defeats to employers and to corporations. They have also taken the side of hard-luck plaintiffs who were mistreated by the government.
Twice recently the court ruled for fired workers and expanded the reach of anti-discrimination laws. It revived an injured motorist's suit against Mazda, refusing to shield automakers from safety claims. The justices rejected a corporation's claim of "personal privacy," and they twice ruled for prisoners, one who had been abused and another who said he was rehabilitated.
They even bent their rigid rule on deadlines for legal appeals to give the "benefit of any doubt" to disabled war veterans. And they gave a death row inmate a new right to seek DNA evidence that he says could prove his innocence.
(More here.)
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
LA Times
March 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington
The Supreme Court, often described as conservative, divided and pro-corporate, has been sounding different notes in recent weeks.
The justices have been unanimous, or nearly so, in dealing defeats to employers and to corporations. They have also taken the side of hard-luck plaintiffs who were mistreated by the government.
Twice recently the court ruled for fired workers and expanded the reach of anti-discrimination laws. It revived an injured motorist's suit against Mazda, refusing to shield automakers from safety claims. The justices rejected a corporation's claim of "personal privacy," and they twice ruled for prisoners, one who had been abused and another who said he was rehabilitated.
They even bent their rigid rule on deadlines for legal appeals to give the "benefit of any doubt" to disabled war veterans. And they gave a death row inmate a new right to seek DNA evidence that he says could prove his innocence.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Thankfully, we have Chief Justice who says he will side with the little guy if the little guy is Constitutionally right and will side with the big guy if the big guy is Constitutionally right.
So, we should expect the court should side with the workers and the underdogs if they are Constitutionally right, not because they are workers and underdogs.
Post a Comment
<< Home