Woody doesn't wanna go all ape-shit about it, or anything but--especially in light of what the SCROTUS* OpusDeist Five (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, mackerel-snappers all) did when deciding Citizens United v. FEC last year--you gotta be crazy (if you're a fan of social justice, anyway) NOT to be worried about what those skeevy, Corporat thugs'll do with Dukes v. Wal-MartM--with its broad implications for the future of ALL class-action litigation, that hitherto invaluable tool in struggling for social justice--given the Owners' frothing, eternally venomous antipathy toward the whole concept in the first place.What's at stake in this decision extends far beyond the particular facts of this case, which involves demonstrated, proven (to the trial court, anyway) systematic discrimination against women by the Wal-Mart Corporats on matters of wages and promotion. The landmark suit accusing the nation's biggest employer of discriminating against women could mean a big win for womens' rights in the work-place -- or it could spell the end of all civil rights class actions. And pretty much nothing in between.
Oral arguments were heard March 29. The decision will be announced in 6 mos or so. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the SCROTUS has a history of finding FOR corpoRat defendants, I am mostly certain the decision will favor the CorpoRats. I believe Kagan had to recuse herself because she'd had some involvement as Solicitor General, so the vote will be 5-3.
It only requires FOUR votes to grant "cert" ("certiorari") and get a case on the SCROTUS docket. There are five reliably CorpoRat votes in the fascist/OpusDeist wing. I do not believe the SCROTUS fucktards would have taken the case if they did NOT intend to use it to overturn and roll back 50 years of 'class-action' jurisprudence, as they did to campaign finance regulation in CitUnited. I think that, like the decision to hear the Citizens United v. FEC case, this is a case presented to the GOPuke-dominated Court for the purpose of their exceeding the narrow limits of the law, and attacking an ideological objective. In CU, it was to reaffirm corpoRat personhood; in Dukes it is to atomize individual personhood. The arguments were heard today.
It depends on how its's written, and how broadly the Majority decides to interpret its decision. But there is a better than even chance that the case will result in a decision which strips plaintiffs of their collective rights for purely economic reasons. That's because what "class action" does is it allows injured parties whose damages would not be sufficient to pay a lawyer to pursue one case to pool their damages and claims, and--by the power of "contingency"--prosecute large-scale, small-time corpoRat hustles and abuses.
Citizens United started with a narrower case than this one, and was decided broadly, because the case was only accepted by the majority when they got instructions to "so something" about strengthening corporat personhood.
What, you don't think those junkets with the Kochs by Scalia and Cunt-hair Clancy all these years were just one-way affairs? The magisterial Justices bestowing wisdom and discussing Justice with their lessers? It's more of a business trip with those two skeevy fucknozzles. They go, give a speech or two, get fawned over, schmooze with the lesser orders, and then closet with the Bosses.
That's where they get their fucking marching orders from the Owners. Orders they carry out by choosing cases to hear (and by implication, of course, to decide, since the "Cinco fascisti" constitute the corrupt majority in each of these decisions), what rules to change; i.e., how and for whom the country is really gonna be run.
Feelin' left out? Sorry 'boudat...
*SCROTUS = SCOTUS run by Pukes
No comments:
Post a Comment