Kathy Posner With Former Mayor DaleyThe ultimate grand supreme can be a crown at a kiddie beauty pageant or a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Today is part three of my series, “Law and Order” week and it is time to examine the United States Supreme Court and some of the upcoming cases in the final two weeks of this session.
In my previous blogs, I carefully explained all the legalities; today’s posting will be my personal rulings without paying any attention to what the actual law might be. I call it “Common Sense Court.” (Which will also be the name of my “future” television show.)
Wal-Mart vs. Dukes
The case focuses on the issue of whether 1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees can sue for gender discrimination in a class action suit. It is not a ruling on the merits of the case, just whether a class action can be certified. I wrote about this case in March when it was the five year anniversary of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas not having asked a single question during oral arguments. I did not know how he could possibly keep quiet on this topic.
Before I had a chance to post this blog, the Supreme Court made its ruling and rejected the potential class-action suit, reasoning that the class would be too large! That is insane! The Court obviously must believe that merit for the lawsuit exists or they would not think the class would be too big. If Wal-Mart had discriminated only against a few hundred women, then the suit could proceed? Makes no sense in my Common Sense Court.
This Court would probably also rule that six million Jews were not killed in concentration camps because that number is too big. Using the Court’s logic, how could the Nazis have gotten rid of so many bodies?
Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association
This case deals with limiting the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors. Lower courts in many states have ruled against this on the grounds that it interferes with freedom of speech. My ruling is that if stores can limit the sale of alcohol and tobacco, they can limit the sale of video games or anything else they want to. The government is not attempting to forbid the sales of such materials altogether – it simply wants to keep it out of age groups too immature to handle them. I realize that a broad statement like that could get me into trouble. After all, it could be interpreted to justify a future ruling that would prevent obese people from buying candy at the grocery store because they are too “immature” to realize how many calories they are consuming.
McComish vs. Bennett
This case deals with public campaign funding. It stems back to 1998 when Arizona voters approved the Clean Elections Act. The Act provides for public financing of state wide elections if the candidate collected a specific number of $5 donations. If an opposing candidate chooses not to participate in the public financing and had oodles of money, then the participating candidate would receive matching funds to keep the race competitive.
There have been all sorts of suits on this issue. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 on another election funding case known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” The Court struck down the provision saying that the goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.”
My ruling is that if political candidates are wealthy, they can spend as much of their own personal money as they want to in an attempt to win any race they want to. If the opposing candidates are poor, let them eat cake.
American Electric Power Co. vs. Conn.
This global warming case was described by David Savage in the Los Angeles Times as, “whether California, New York and four other states can sue the nation's five largest producers of the greenhouse gases that are widely blamed for causing climate change. The coal-fired power plants are concentrated in the Midwest and South. “
As I wrote in April 2009,“Global warming? It is snowing in April!! The “inconvenient truth” that there is no global warming was proved today when snow fell in April causing the cancellation of the White Sox opener. It has been 27 years since a White Sox opener was delayed. So how is the world “warming up”, if the temperature is falling? I planned on building a snowman in honor of Al Gore to prove the fallacy of the global warming myth, but in the city the snow goes away as soon as it falls.
My ruling is that global warming does not exist. There is no merit to this lawsuit. It should be thrown out. Period. End of story.
Read More From Chicago's Kathy Posner Here....
In my previous blogs, I carefully explained all the legalities; today’s posting will be my personal rulings without paying any attention to what the actual law might be. I call it “Common Sense Court.” (Which will also be the name of my “future” television show.)
Wal-Mart vs. Dukes
The case focuses on the issue of whether 1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees can sue for gender discrimination in a class action suit. It is not a ruling on the merits of the case, just whether a class action can be certified. I wrote about this case in March when it was the five year anniversary of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas not having asked a single question during oral arguments. I did not know how he could possibly keep quiet on this topic.
Before I had a chance to post this blog, the Supreme Court made its ruling and rejected the potential class-action suit, reasoning that the class would be too large! That is insane! The Court obviously must believe that merit for the lawsuit exists or they would not think the class would be too big. If Wal-Mart had discriminated only against a few hundred women, then the suit could proceed? Makes no sense in my Common Sense Court.
This Court would probably also rule that six million Jews were not killed in concentration camps because that number is too big. Using the Court’s logic, how could the Nazis have gotten rid of so many bodies?
Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association
This case deals with limiting the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors. Lower courts in many states have ruled against this on the grounds that it interferes with freedom of speech. My ruling is that if stores can limit the sale of alcohol and tobacco, they can limit the sale of video games or anything else they want to. The government is not attempting to forbid the sales of such materials altogether – it simply wants to keep it out of age groups too immature to handle them. I realize that a broad statement like that could get me into trouble. After all, it could be interpreted to justify a future ruling that would prevent obese people from buying candy at the grocery store because they are too “immature” to realize how many calories they are consuming.
McComish vs. Bennett
This case deals with public campaign funding. It stems back to 1998 when Arizona voters approved the Clean Elections Act. The Act provides for public financing of state wide elections if the candidate collected a specific number of $5 donations. If an opposing candidate chooses not to participate in the public financing and had oodles of money, then the participating candidate would receive matching funds to keep the race competitive.
There have been all sorts of suits on this issue. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 on another election funding case known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment.” The Court struck down the provision saying that the goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.”
My ruling is that if political candidates are wealthy, they can spend as much of their own personal money as they want to in an attempt to win any race they want to. If the opposing candidates are poor, let them eat cake.
American Electric Power Co. vs. Conn.
This global warming case was described by David Savage in the Los Angeles Times as, “whether California, New York and four other states can sue the nation's five largest producers of the greenhouse gases that are widely blamed for causing climate change. The coal-fired power plants are concentrated in the Midwest and South. “
As I wrote in April 2009,“Global warming? It is snowing in April!! The “inconvenient truth” that there is no global warming was proved today when snow fell in April causing the cancellation of the White Sox opener. It has been 27 years since a White Sox opener was delayed. So how is the world “warming up”, if the temperature is falling? I planned on building a snowman in honor of Al Gore to prove the fallacy of the global warming myth, but in the city the snow goes away as soon as it falls.
My ruling is that global warming does not exist. There is no merit to this lawsuit. It should be thrown out. Period. End of story.
Read More From Chicago's Kathy Posner Here....
0 comments:
Post a Comment