No, not Act 2. But in what in post-Act 2 Hawaii could serve as a "teaching moment," the US Congress has sent a bill to President Obama that would overturn a Supreme Court decision that required strict adhesion to a statute of limitations congress has written into an employment discrimination law. The law required claimants to file their claims 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”
The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, had argued that she did not become aware of a discriminatory pay discrepancy until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala. The court held that, too bad, the law required her to bring suit within 180 days. Congress understandably didn't like the harsh result and changed the law - which is, of course, its prerogative.. The president is expected to sign it. No one is expected to challenge congress's power to change its laws in response to supreme court decisions it doesn't like.
6 comments:
"Legislatures?" You mean "Congress" or "legislators," I reckon.
Anyway, I don't believe this is as perfect a parallel to the HSF fiasco as you might think/hope it to be. The Lege did not amend the EIS law in the manner that Congress has amended the employment law. The Lege created a whole new pseudo-EIS process to apply only to a "class" of one. In contrast, this act of Congress will apply to all pay discrimination cases.
Right?
now why would the blog author "think/hope" it to be anything other than a reminder that a given leg. can pass any law (even one which effectively strikes down a ct's prior holding / ruling) as long as that new law is not unconstitutional?
8th grade stuff buddy
think the new law is unconstitutional? thats cool; file a brief then
I always appreciate your edits, Doug. And usually they occur early enough to save me from leaving some giant blemish hanging out there for too long.
Yes, I agree with the distinctions you draw. Recall, however, that much, much of the outcry against Act 2 consisted of the incorrect claim that it was somehow unconstitutional for the legislature to overturn a supreme court decision. Similarly, there was also outcry based on the misconception that the lege cannot legislate on behalf of a single specific entity (or a "class of one"). Those are the sorts of widespread misapprehensions I'm addressing here (and have addressed numerous times in the past).
I've certainly addressed the more sophisticated allegations contained in the appellate briefs enough times and in enough depth that I surely can't be accused of tilting at straw men here.
i claim shenanigans
there is no way that many people here dont understand these basics
Part of the problem with popular understanding of the issues is that Isaac Hall's soundbites for the press have tended to oversimplify his arguments - which is understandable.
It's easier for him to say, and for the press to print, that "Act 2 illegally created a 'class of one,'" than: "Act 2 is narrowly tailored to the Superferry in violation of either Article I, Section 21 prohibiting the legislature from making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities that would impair the general welfare, or Article XI, Section 5 of the state constitution requiring that the "legislative powers over the lands owned by or under the control of the state and its political subdivisions" be exercised only by "general laws.""
the "leg. can pass any law (even one which effectively strikes down a ct's prior holding / ruling) as long as that new law is not unconstitutional" cite is a good example of the sort of "basics" i was referring too of course
im takin civics class basics, not 2L con law exercises
oh well
nice of you to lay it out here tho for persons that want to understand this stuff a little better
Post a Comment