Supreme Court

The Supreme Court earlier this year prevented female Wal-Mart employees from forming a national class to enforce their rights against the retail giant. Despite evidence that female employees throughout the nation earned less than similarly situated male employees and were less likely to be promoted, and that Wal-Mart’s corporate policies and practices allowed for managers to use blatant sex stereotyping to make decisions about pay and promotions, the ruling prevented the women from having their case heard on the merits. Now, these women have changed their strategy to get their day in court and vindicate their rights to equal opportunity in the workplace. Read more »

Law professor Robert Bork has signed on as co-chairman of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s “Justice Advisory Committee.” According to Bork, a former federal judge and failed Supreme Court nominee, “I’d like to be asked a question now and then for advice.”

So, what kind of advice will Bork, known for his staunchly outlier positions, offer? Well, in addition to his opposition to the constitutional right to privacy and his very limited view of the protection of the First Amendment, Bork takes an extreme stance on the Fourteenth Amendment: he believes the Equal Protection Clause should not apply to women. (Even Justice Scalia recently walked back a similar view.) As Bork explained to Newsweek:

“I think I feel justified [in taking that position] by the fact ever since [the Court held that it applies to women], the Equal Protection Clause kept expanding in ways that cannot be justified historically, grammatically, or any other way. Women are a majority of the population now—a majority in university classrooms and a majority in all kinds of contexts. It seems to me silly to say, ‘Gee, they’re discriminated against and we need to do something about it.’ They aren’t discriminated against anymore.” Read more »

About a year ago, Justice Scalia was asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying the equal protection of the laws, applies to sex discrimination. (Hint: in decades of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has said that it does.) His answer was shocking. He said:

“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.” Read more »