29/06: This Weekend on C-SPAN
Category: Courts
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
On Saturday, C-SPAN will carry John Roberts in the morning (tentatively scheduled for 9:30 EDT); he will address the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference and review the major decisions of the current Supreme Court term. Following the chief justice's remarks, a roundtable discussion will offer analysis. Discussants set to appear include Duke Law's Walter Dellinger and Akin Gump's Tom Goldstein.
Please note this handy resource from the court's website cataloguing the opinions issued during October Term 2006 here.
On Sunday, 1 July, Michael Barone will be the guest on C-SPAN2's ("Book TV") In Depth, the once-a-month, three-hour interview with a prominent person of letters. Generally, In Depth is a "can't lose" proposition--but Barone seems especially promising. The right-leaning Barone is well known for his encyclopedic knowledge of American politics and his cogent analysis.
Overview of In Depth here.
Specifics about the upcoming discussion with Michael Barone here.
Thanks to Tocqueville for pointing me to the John Roberts programming.
Please note this handy resource from the court's website cataloguing the opinions issued during October Term 2006 here.
On Sunday, 1 July, Michael Barone will be the guest on C-SPAN2's ("Book TV") In Depth, the once-a-month, three-hour interview with a prominent person of letters. Generally, In Depth is a "can't lose" proposition--but Barone seems especially promising. The right-leaning Barone is well known for his encyclopedic knowledge of American politics and his cogent analysis.
Overview of In Depth here.
Specifics about the upcoming discussion with Michael Barone here.
Thanks to Tocqueville for pointing me to the John Roberts programming.
Category: Courts
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last month we very briefly discussed the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber case in which the Supreme Court ruled against a female plaintiff claiming salary discrimination based on gender (you may review here).
This week, Stuart Taylor, the brilliant, implacable and incorruptible legal journalist discussed the case in his column for the National Journal.
Quoting Taylor:
This headline ["Injustice 5, Justice 4'"], borrowed from a New York Times editorial, pretty well sums up the news media's portrayal of a May 29 Supreme Court ruling (here) [PDF] that an Alabama woman suing her former employer for sex-based pay discrimination had not filed her claim within the congressionally prescribed time limit.
Taylor examines the media bias in reporting the decision as well as an enlightening discussion of the ruling itself. Read the full article here.
Another Taylor quote to whet your appetite:
Are Alito and company really such heartless, pro-discrimination brutes? Hardly. Ginsburg's dissent was well put. But Alito had the better of the argument as to congressional language and the Court's own precedents, in my view. And as a policy matter, it's far from clear that justice would be better served by the Ginsburg approach of opening the door wide to employees who, like the plaintiff in this case, wait for many years to claim long-ago -- and thus difficult to disprove -- pay discrimination.
Excellent. Thank you to Tocqueville for passing this along.
This week, Stuart Taylor, the brilliant, implacable and incorruptible legal journalist discussed the case in his column for the National Journal.
Quoting Taylor:
This headline ["Injustice 5, Justice 4'"], borrowed from a New York Times editorial, pretty well sums up the news media's portrayal of a May 29 Supreme Court ruling (here) [PDF] that an Alabama woman suing her former employer for sex-based pay discrimination had not filed her claim within the congressionally prescribed time limit.
Taylor examines the media bias in reporting the decision as well as an enlightening discussion of the ruling itself. Read the full article here.
Another Taylor quote to whet your appetite:
Are Alito and company really such heartless, pro-discrimination brutes? Hardly. Ginsburg's dissent was well put. But Alito had the better of the argument as to congressional language and the Court's own precedents, in my view. And as a policy matter, it's far from clear that justice would be better served by the Ginsburg approach of opening the door wide to employees who, like the plaintiff in this case, wait for many years to claim long-ago -- and thus difficult to disprove -- pay discrimination.
Excellent. Thank you to Tocqueville for passing this along.
Sidebar
