welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The SCOTUS Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17309
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, it makes him a democrat, and he's clearly an activist, but i think it is a mischaracterization to call him an "activist democrat", since what he is activizing for is well out of the democratic party line. and (thank god!) he apparently hasn't been active in party politics for over a dozen years.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17309
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

another major pro-business ruling (which i came across just by chance):
Quote:
Businesses may use standard-form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together in a single arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines.

Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do, the decision suggested, is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.


so businesses can defraud people out of small sums of money (the original dispute was over $30) - and they can do it to thousands of people and continue to do it, because now those people (individually trivial) can't band together in a class-action suit.

i guess it's ok to bleed someone to death, as long as you just do it drop by drop.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 4:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SO many may not care but this is highly relevant to A LOT of us: Highlights of the new guidelines:
http://gaming.icrontic.com/article/nea-video-games-are-an-art-form/

Quote:
The Arts in Media guidelines replace The Arts on Radio and Television guidelines.

The Arts in Media builds on the success of The Arts on Radio and Television. All project types that were previously eligible remain eligible. In addition, the expanded category now includes:

All available media platforms such as the Internet, interactive and mobile technologies, digital games, arts content delivered via satellite, as well as on radio and television.

Media projects that can be considered works of art.

Grants are available to support the development, production, and national distribution of innovative media projects about the arts (e.g., visual arts, music, dance, literature, design, theater, musical theater, opera, folk & traditional arts, and media arts including film, audio, animation, and digital art) and media projects that can be considered works of art.

Projects may include high profile multi-part or single television and radio programs (documentaries and dramatic narratives); media created for theatrical release; performance programs; artistic segments for use within an existing series; multi-part webisodes; installations; and interactive games. Short films, five minutes and under, will be considered in packages of three or more.

Grants generally will range from $10,000 to $200,000, based on the platform and the complexity and scope of the project.

The application deadline date is September 1, 2011, for projects that may start on May 1, 2012, or any time thereafter.


Which relates back to this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-court-video-games-20101102

tl;dr California tried to say that video games are not art, which removes any rights granted to the producers of games by the First amendment. The National Endowment for the Arts is, in the above post, saying that video games are indeed art. Read here http://www.mediacoalition.org/VSDA-v.-Schwarzenegger-
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Celaeno



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3030
Location: Kzoo

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duke v. Wal-mart

Analysis here.

Discuss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrew



Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 4495
Location: the raging sea

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Discuss what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9559

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justice Clarence 'andrew' Thomas wrote:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

andrew wrote:
Discuss what?

I gotta agree, it seems fairly clear that there was a lack of commonality. However, I think the Justices may have been a little to dismissive of some of the evidence, but that's just the impression from the analysis. I understand that you can't go by anecdotal evidence but how many sworn affidavits were there with similar stories? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? at what point does different people telling the same story stop being anecdotal?

Also, Thomas' words were simply moving.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So _all_ the women judges dissented on the one topic of whether on not the women employees had a case (but still agreeing that the for money part was out of line in the way that they pursued it)?

Perhaps we need a few more women on the supreme court bench though I am happy that there are as many as there are.

_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Celaeno



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3030
Location: Kzoo

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

andrew wrote:
Discuss what?

It's a high profile case that went 5-4--surely our highly opinionated forum has something to say about this. I'm just curious as to what that something is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17309
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm thinking antonin scalia needs to keel over dead and be reincarnated as a woman working at walmart. and then spend 20 years not getting paid as much as a male coworker.

i was wondering though - can they split up the existing super-large class, and have tighter, smaller ones? so maybe one suit for women in management position, one for women working lower level jobs, etc.? or is this truly the death of class-action suits?

although it sounds like scalia et al. simply don't believe the basic charge: that walmart discriminated against women because they are women. it sounds like they want some more explicit reason, like women working as stockers made less because the company believes they can't lift as much as men, or something like that.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
i'm thinking antonin scalia needs to keel over dead and be reincarnated as a woman working at walmart. and then spend 20 years not getting paid as much as a male coworker.

i was wondering though - can they split up the existing super-large class, and have tighter, smaller ones? so maybe one suit for women in management position, one for women working lower level jobs, etc.? or is this truly the death of class-action suits?

although it sounds like scalia et al. simply don't believe the basic charge: that walmart discriminated against women because they are women. it sounds like they want some more explicit reason, like women working as stockers made less because the company believes they can't lift as much as men, or something like that.

I'm under the impression that had they filed this as a few or several smaller class suits the results would be much different.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mr Gary



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 6259
Location: Some pub in England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
can they split up the existing super-large class, and have tighter, smaller ones? so maybe one suit for women in management position, one for women working lower level jobs, etc.?


Perhaps all women should just wear tighter, smaller suits. Like sexy Supernanny costumes.

That'd be egalitarian, no?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lasairfiona wrote:
So _all_ the women judges dissented on the one topic of whether on not the women employees had a case

Well, of course. A resolution in favour of Womyn against Wal-Mart would establish precedence that improves the chances of grrrl Justices getting pay rises, too.

Really, they should have recused themselves for having so much financial interest in the outcome of the case.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Opinion of the Court wrote:
Pay and promotion decisions at Wal-Mart are generally committed to local managersí broad discretion,

ehehehe
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lasairfiona wrote:
So _all_ the women judges dissented on the one topic of whether on not the women employees had a case (but still agreeing that the for money part was out of line in the way that they pursued it)?

The decision here wasn't about whether the women had a case. It was about whether it was appropriate to certify the very large group "all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998" as a class capable of bringing a class-action suit.

Unanimous decision is, "Back-pay is correctly a matter for Rule 23b3, not 23b2, because 23b3 explicitly names the defendant's right to individualized determinations of each employee's eligibility. If a class is going to be governed by Rule 23b2, it cannot have anything to do with back-pay."

Majority decision is, "For a group to be certified as a class for class-action purposes, it must demonstrate that they have all suffered the same offense from the defense. They didn't do that."

Dissenting opinion is, "They sort of did. Or at least they came close enough that we should probably investigate the question more thoroughly. Majority opinion is being too strict in its use of the word 'common'".

I got the impression that the dissenting opinion wasn't so much arguing for certifying this particular class, though, as much as it maybe wanted some pretrial investigation to help set up a future, somewhat better designed class suit against Wal-Mart.

It all feels like the sort of hoops that have to be jumped through for years before the big case is finally warmed up and ready to go.

One thing worth noting is that the majority decision seems to rely on corporate culture not having a consistant effect across all 3,400 stores, which rather implies that a class-action against a particularly offensive store, or even an 80-store region, might have much better success.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 4 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group