An Act
Recalling
United States
Supreme Court
Justice and\or Justices
from
The Supreme Court
of United States of America

DECEMBER 18, 2008

SPECIFIC SOLUTION BY FEDERAL STATUTE:

An Act Recalling United States Supreme Court Justice an\or Justices from The Supreme Court of United States of America

 “The Public Recall Petitions Act  removing from  The Supreme Court of United States of  America, a  Justice or  Justices; subsequent to  a  petition of garnered  signatures of 25% of the registered voters of the United States of  America;   such, verified and confirmed by the  Secretary of State of each State; thereafter, an immediate  vote  is ordered by  The House and Senate  regarding  the question of  whether or not, any or all  named Supreme Court Justice  or Justices,   are judged, during their tenure, as not performing  in  the public national interest;   any   Justice receiving  a majority affirmative vote; is, thereby,   deemed  removed from  The Supreme Court of United States of America; thereafter,   directing  a ballot position be  created during the next presidential election  to determine the  non-partisan occupant of such  Supreme Court seat; while, in the interim, the removed Justice or  Justices   may remain in performance their duties, until the national election  outcome is decided; or,  otherwise, if a vacancy occurs, The President may appoint an provisional Justice, with the  advice and consent of the Senate.”

SUGGESTED LANGUAGE

 This  Act hereby  creates:   “The Public Recall Petitions Act  removing from  The Supreme Court of United States of  America, a  Justice or  Justices; subsequent to  a  petition of garnered  signatures of 25% of the registered voters of the United States of  America;   such, verified and confirmed by the  Secretary of State of each State; thereafter which, an immediate  vote  is ordered by  The House and Senate  regarding  the question of  whether or not, any or all  named Supreme Court Justice  or Justices,   are judged, during their tenure, as not performing  in  the public national interest;   any   Justice receiving  a majority affirmative vote; is, thereby,   deemed    removed from  The Supreme Court of United States of America; thereafter,   directing  a ballot position be  created during the next presidential election  to determine the  non-partisan occupant of such  Supreme Court seat; while, in the interim, the removed Justice or  Justices   may remain in performance their duties, until the national election  outcome is decided; or,  otherwise, if a vacancy occurs, The President may appoint an provisional Justice, with the  advice and consent of the Senate.”

With a 52% US divorce rate; did  the Supreme Court rule how the children will be fed. How low our public ethics have fallen. To our volunteers:  Do not lose hope. The times they are a changin'"

discrimination that may have occurred years earlier.

The court ruled 5-4 that Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama, did not file her lawsuit

against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A jury had originally awarded her more than $3.5 million because it found it "more likely than not" that sex

discrimination during her 19-year career led to her being paid substantially less than her male counterparts.

An appeals court reversed, saying the law requires the suit be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful

employment practice occurred," and Ledbetter couldn't prove discrimination within that time period. She had argued

that she was discriminated against throughout her career and each paycheck that was less because of discrimination was

a new violation.

The conservative majority of the court disagreed, and upheld the appeals court.

"Current effects alone can't breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination," Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote for

the majority. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia

and Clarence Thomas, a former head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"We apply the statute as written, and this means that any unlawful employment practice, including those involving

compensation, must be presented ... within the period prescribed by the statute."

Alito said employers should not have to defend themselves against complaints of bias from the distant past. The "short

deadline" contained in the law, Alito wrote, "reflects Congress's strong preference for the prompt resolution of

employment discrimination allegations through voluntary conciliation and cooperation."

The opinion drew a rebuke from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's only woman, who said "Title VII was meant

to govern real-world employment practices, and that world is what the court today ignores."

Ginsburg read a statement from the bench, just as she had when the court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Act, which outlawed a specific abortion procedure, something Ginsburg said eroded women's rights. In both cases,

Ginsburg was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Ginsburg stated that the court majority "does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which

women can be victims of pay discrimination."

The case is Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Posted by Carrie Kurzon | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination
 

South Street Seaport, 19 Fulton Street Suite 400, New York, NY 10038

Phone: 212-571-2000 Fax: 212-571-0505 submissions@ottingerlaw.com

Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © New York Employment Lawyer Blog Justia

Legal Website Design