How to Counteract the Court

[Passages]

Relevant look back to 2020

Congress has the power to override Supreme Court rulings based on statutory interpretations.

BY RACHEL M. COHEN, MARCIA BROWN NOVEMBER 24, 2020

From 1979 until her retirement in 1998, Lilly Ledbetter worked at Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama. Once she had left the job, she learned a disturbing fact. When Ledbetter had started, her supervisor salary was comparable to that of men in similar positions. But with each performance review, the men she worked alongside got bigger raises, and she gradually fell further and further behind. By the time she retired, she was earning $3,727 a month, hundreds of dollars less than the lowest-paid man in her position, and significantly below the average man.

Ledbetter took Goodyear to court, alleging a blatant violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal treatment in the workplace. But in 2007, the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations on her claims had expired, and she could no longer seek redress. She would have had to file her claim shortly after Goodyear hired her, the Court ruled. This was an absurd request—Ledbetter didn’t know how she was being cheated until she neared retirement—and it served to gut the ability of any woman to reasonably enforce the law.

The Court had issued what’s known as a statutory ruling, which is distinct from a constitutional ruling. In other words, the Court had not deemed the law itself to be unconstitutional, but merely ruled that the way the statute had been written rendered it unavailable to Ledbetter.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent that urged Congress to intervene. The Court’s interpretation, Ginsburg said, was out of step with modern wage discrimination and the realities of the workplace. She recommended Congress amend the law, and fix the Court’s “parsimonious” reading, so workers like Ledbetter could have a shot at restitution. Ginsburg added: “[T]he ball is in Congress’ court.”
https://prospect.org/justice/how-to-counteract-the-supreme-court/

[vapor2]

1. I read that Joe Morelle is attempting to overturn this insane ruling

[Passages]

2. Great to hear. Thank you.

[Skittles]

4. good

no matter what the result it is important this issue and its implications be brought out to the public

[Igel]

5. Why? It's no longer an issue.

Ledbetter became a proxy for the cause of equal pay for equal work, and Democrats pledged to fight the ruling the first chance they got. And they did, rewriting the statute so that the clock would start ticking on the statute of limitations each time a discriminatory paycheck was issued, not at the time an employee was first hired. The very first piece of legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009 was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

RBG said it was up to Congress to opine on the matter, and Congress so opined. The SCOTUS' opinion is less "overturned" than "the law is changed so SCOTUS' opinion is no longer relevant."

BTW, "it's up to Congress to change the law" is a standard SCOTUS trope. Very often the SCOTUS opinion's basically tell Congress what revisions are necessary to the law to get to a different outcome.

[oldmanlynn]

3. Its our only hope is to win the house senate and presidency

We can still do it. We have over performed in several years worth of elections and its even greater now with roe getting overturned. The republicans stink and so does trump. The country knows this.

Dems need to stay united