In a huge surprise, the Supreme Court sided with the ACLU on two cases and broadly interpreted both. Surprisingly, Judge Alito, a Bush pick, sided with the ACLU on one of those cases, and Judge Roberts, the other Bush pick, sided with the ACLU on the other case. You can read about the cases here, then please answer the poll.

and no surprise, scalia and thomas dissented in both instances

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

i agree with a quote from the article while i dont agree with the loose interpretation of law,
or someone trying to use a law written in 1866 to decide a present day issue,
we have to do everything we can to allow people to reveal discrimination,
or there will always be discrimination.

so i view the decisions as 'necessarily loose' interpretations,
and im okay with them.

a.k.a.
i don't really care.
loose interpretations suck,
but so does punishing someone for revealing discrimination.

the court still hangs to the right

__________________

I don't see how this case was any proof of liberalism in the justices. I'm not so sure it was "strict constructionist" but I don't think that phrase has any real meaning anyway.

The court basically said that the workers could take the case to court.
That isn't very radical.

Really claiming someone does not have the right to take some grievance to court is what requires explanation.

It just so happens this is one of those areas where a lot of conservatives and most liberals can agree.

Of course the two radical-cons dissented... but that's because they are what I've come to think the meaning of "strict constructionist" is: they are insane right-wing ideologues who favor anything that gives more power to the rich and elite at the expense of ordinary people.
I'm sure that's not the intended meaning... but that's what it's come to mean.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

what surprised you about this?

you think the ACLU and conservative judges are anathema to each other or what?

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

why no surprise? you expected the other conservative judges to go along, but not these?

could you please explain that a little bit---your reasoning?

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

loose interpretation?

Quote:

In a pair of decisions, the court concluded that claims of retaliation were covered by long-standing civil rights laws, even though this kind of discrimination was not mentioned specifically in the statutes.

...if something isn't specifically mentioned it isn't covered, so this offends your sensibilities, or you have issues with the court upholding "long-standing civil rights laws" as a practice?

what principles are involved? was this an activist decision?

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

you know what?
i didnt say it offended me,
and i said i was ok with it.

the principle involved was protecting people who report discrimination.
which is NOT in the 1866 law.
and no it wasnt activist.
it was the supreme court picking up the ball the best way they could after the original judge fumbled it.

__________________