Anti-Bias Laws Cover Retaliation Claims, U.S. Supreme Court Rules

May 27, 2008

  • May 29, 2008 at 7:51 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Your argument doesn’t make any sense. Slavery was in the USA, the Holocaust was not. A little bit of a difference there.

    Either way, I also think the whining has to stop; however, we should not ignore some of the deep seeded ignorance that causes racial discrimination in the work place. We don’t want whiners, so these cases should be looked at individually on their merits. Also, don’t let a few whiners make you think the whole race is the same way.

  • May 29, 2008 at 8:42 am
    LDP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The point was adversity not location

  • May 29, 2008 at 8:59 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Making excuses like this is soft racism, Neo. Besides, how does any of that explain a 70% bastardy rate (that was 25% in 1960)?

  • May 29, 2008 at 9:02 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Why is it Scalia dissents on almost everything. I bet if he had his way, we would still have slaves and women would be barefoot, pregnant and no right to vote.”

    Only a total dope liberal democrat would make such a gratuitously stupid statement.

  • May 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    *…most judges believe in a “living Constitution”, one that is interpreted by the mores of modern society.*

    Then we don’t need a constitution at all, do we? Howsabout you and I play poker some time with “living rules.”

    No wonder this country’s so screwed up.

  • May 29, 2008 at 10:27 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Only a total dope liberal would make such a gratuitously stupid statement.”

    I think if I hear anymore of this partisan bickering I might go crazy. I don’t think that “liberals” and “conservatives” are capable of having an actual discussion or debate anymore because we have debased the level of discourse to such idiotic name calling that the actual issues are pushed to the side to see who can do the best swiftboat job.

  • May 29, 2008 at 10:31 am
    The Obvious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It seems to me that most of the dialog related to this website revolves around pushing one’s conservative or liberal point of view, ad nauseam. In doing so, it appears a couple of points were missed in this particular dialog. First, no precedent was set with this ruling. “Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court’s past precedents require the finding that the law encompasses retaliation claims.” Second, Ms Gomez-Perez was not filing a claim based on race (which would be kind of silly since most of Puerto Rico’s citizens are of Spanish decent). Her suit was based on age discrimination.

  • May 29, 2008 at 10:40 am
    Miked says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You wont fit in here. This is only a place for republicans to spout partisan selfish foxnews bush loving insults.

    Most of the people dont even posses much of an education.

    The ignorance is sad.

  • May 29, 2008 at 10:47 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Miked,

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • May 29, 2008 at 10:49 am
    Al says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Scalia dissents on almost everything. I bet if he had his way, we would still have slaves and women would be barefoot, pregnant and no right to vote.”

    This is mainstream liberal democrat, http://www.dailykook.com, paranoid hate, but you only notice when Repubs rub you the wrong way – because you are anencephalic.

    Liberalism is a mental illness and an emotional problem.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*