Walmart, "Too Big to Sue" per SCOTUS. n/t

[RKP5637]

[lonestarnot]

1. Isn't that just the shit!

Obama needs to get down with the Court appointments. Keep feeding Grimace tortillas and beans!

[Marblehead]

2. not to big to boycott

[RKP5637]

3. I'd love that. I read someplace, I think a post/link on DU, that Walmart was

piloting mini Walmart stores to take out the last of the competition in small towns/villages where a regular Walmart was too big. We've got such monopolies going on it's criminal. I think Target is planning the same. It's gross. I avoid Walmart like the plague.

[Vanje]

4. Thats....

big time FUCKED

[nineteen50]

5. Supreme Court

told corporations if you are going to screw people over do it
to everyone then it's o.k.

[RKP5637]

6. Yep, that's pretty much it. Equality the American way, screw over everyone. n/t

[boppers]

7. Can't sue on behalf of all women.

Not too big to sue, the suits can still go forward... but it won't be "all women who worked for Walmart vs. Walmart".

[BillyJack]

8. That's a joke, right?

RIGHT???

Is the SCOTUS saying that the walmart is bigger/more powerful/more important than the SCOTUS, the Constitution, and the rule of law itself???!!!!

If so, whatta buncha $*#)O$*#%&* <==== (read "tools" ;-/ ) on the supreme court.

HUGELY disappointing b*stards (and b*stard-ettes)

[OhioBlue]

9. just for clarification...

all three women on the SC dissented from the opinion.

[former9thward]

13. Just for clarification, they didn't. It was a 8-0 decision.

What is your purpose in spreading misinformation?

[BillyJack]

15. Which was it? Did the women dissent or was it unanimous (sp?)

Where can I check this out for myself.

[OhioBlue]

17. just google... it was 5-4.

edit to add.... here is a link:
http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/280-washington/111100-supreme-court-rules-for-wal-mart-in-class-action-sex-discrimination-case

The court did rule unanimously on a legal rule about back pay tho which may be what the other poster is thinking of... here is a little more detail:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/opinion-analysis-wal-marts-two-messages/

[former9thward]

19. I don't have to google I have read the decision. It was 8-0.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/bs_nm/us_walmart_lawsuit "The justices unanimously ruled that more than 1 million female employees nationwide could not proceed together in the lawsuit seeking billions of dollars and accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions."

[OhioBlue]

16. No it wasn't - it was 5-4

http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/280-washington/111100-supreme-court-rules-for-wal-mart-in-class-action-sex-discrimination-case

what is YOUR purpose in spreading misinformation might be the appropriate question. You probably shouldn't accuse me of something without backing up your statement.

[former9thward]

18. The decision was 8-0 for Wal Mart.

As part of the decision the majority imposed further rules on class actions. The vote on that was 5-4. That had nothing to do with the Wal Mart decision. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/bs_nm/us_walmart_la... "The justices unanimously ruled that more than 1 million female employees nationwide could not proceed together in the lawsuit seeking billions of dollars and accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions."

[OhioBlue]

20. no it wasn't

read the article I linked to - the unanimous decision was on a rule on how class actions are certified or brought before the SC - AND there are 9 justices - not 8.

The dissenting opinion DID NOT side with Wal Mart:

All three women justices and Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the court's decision to shut down the lawsuit. "Gender bias suffused Walmart's corporate culture," wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (left).

[BillyJack]

14. Thanks for that clarification.

Guess that means we need more women on the supreme court.

Lord knows women have not gotten their 'fair share' of the largesse..... :eyes:


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

-----

All that I want are honest objective thinking people as my representatives and judges. That's NOT too much to ask for.

That is obviously NOT what we have here today and that is why people, like myself, are FRUSTRATED.

ON EDIT TO CLARIFY: No one should be given 'gifts' to persuaded them one way or another. I meant that MEN, most likely b/c they have traditionally held positions of power, have been most likely to benefit from 'gifts with a bribe attached'. Women have traditionally been offered these 'untoward gifts'. I'm just saying that women will "cave" just the same as men have, given the opportunity. The only reason these 3 women "held-out" is b/c they weren't BRIBED enough. They, rightfully, are holding out for the same amount of money/patrimoney/influence that their male SCOTUS members receive. RIGHTFULLY SO!!!

(How cynical is that?)

[RKP5637]

12. Post #7 talked about that some.

[OhioBlue]

10. I need to read more on this before I can really form an opinion

all I really know is what I heard on NPR - it sounded like the dissenting opinion also acknowledged that there were problems with how the lower court ruled or something...

[RKP5637]

11. Post #7 talked about that some.