It’s been some time since I’ve covered cases of note on the Court. In the interim, rulings have been issued that have opined on abortion and antitrust cases, to name two issues of note.
The Court will end its current Term sometime in the next six to eight weeks whereupon it will then recess for the summer. The next Term will begin on Monday, 1 October 2007.
* * *
Title VII and Employment Discrimination
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court split rather predictably by a 5-4 vote in the case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire (05-1074). At issue before the Court was a lawsuit regarding compensatory discrimination that had the unfortunate instance of having surpassed its statute of limitations. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, whilst Justice Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.
David Savage opines on Ledbetter here.
Here is an audio analysis by Dahlia Lithwick, of Slate, courtesy of NPR.com.
Here is an illuminative discussion on the effects of Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement last year and the rightward shift of the Court’s composition.
* * *
Cameras in the Courtroom
S. 344 has been introduced into the Senate as of 22 January 2007 with the express purpose of mandating that Supreme Court proceedings be televised for the general public. Senators Specter (R-PA), Grassley (R-IA), Durbin (D-IL), Schumer (D-NY) and Feingold (D-WI) are co-sponsors. The bill is similar to H.R. 1299 and has had a substantial number of hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary.
“The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it’s going to roll over my dead body.” — Justice David Souter, in response to a Congressional inquiry in 1996
Significant opposition lies amongst the justices with respect to this issue, both in terms of the Court as an institution and with regard to potential separation of powers issues. For a summary of comments made by sitting justices, click here.
Michigan Law Review has an online symposium on cameras in the Courtroom which you can view by clicking here.
Orin Kerr responds with a tentative “yes” at The Volokh Conspiracy.
A partial transcript containing Senator Specter’s remarks can be seen here.
I know this blog has a number of readers of all ideological stripes. I have to confess that I’m torn between the need for transparency in government (i.e., a more knowledgeable populace has the capability to make wiser, better informed decisions) and preserving the aura and dignity of an institution (i.e., the Justices should refrain from sensationalizing their duties). The problem is that there seems to be very little in the way of established judicial precedent that could prevent the bill from taking effect were it signed into law by President Bush.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue.
In the first case:
The ruling is consistent with the law. IMO the law itself is unconstitutional. From a property rights/contractual standpoint she had no case, as the company clearly documented she was a poor performer, and she continued to agree to work for the wages supplied.
An analogy is that I sell my buddy tom a baseball for $5, and I charge you $10. What I sold it to him for isn’t at all relevant, what is relevant is only that you are willing to pay the $10, and that I not perpetrate fraud by telling you I have a baseball and selling you a soccer ball.
Anyway.
On the camera issue, I really don’t see why we wouldn’t allow cameras, but I also don’t think there would be much to watch. The SCOTUS isn’t exacty a dynamic group. Might be neat for education. In any event, any time the governement doesn’t want me to see something, it makes me think they should show me.
Comment by Paul — June 7, 2007 @ 9:22 pm