United Supremes. Three times.
Seems like you never hear of a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, do you? You’d be wrong – and in the recent past, wrong thrice. Who knew?
First off, the Mexico decision last week. As thebesig told us, the Mexican government was suing Smith & Wesson et al, claiming the gun companies were actively supporting and marketing directly to gun smugglers who were creating all that havoc in Mexico. As other articles on the subject showed, Mexico was abetted in this by prominent anti-gun American lawyers – you know, the type would would crawl across flaming broken glass for a chance to hurt a gun company? The unanimous decision against Mexico was written by no less than prominent liberal Justice Elena Kagan:
The gun case was brought by Mexico against seven American gun manufacturers for allegedly aiding and abetting an illegal influx of firearms from the U.S. into Mexico.
Indeed, according to the Mexican government, as many as 90 percent of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States.
The Mexican government’s lawsuit, which sought billions of dollars in damages, alleged that U.S. gun manufacturers failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent this gun trafficking, which they knew was going on.
But Kagan, writing for the court, said Mexico’s complaint “does not plausibly allege the kind of conscious … and culpable participation in another’s wrongdoing needed to prove liability. We have little doubt that some of these sales take place,” she said, but the Mexican government “has not sufficiently alleged that the gun makers not only participate in illegal gun sales but also want them to happen,” which, she said, is what the law requires.
There are very few ways in which a company legally selling a legal product can be legally charged for its later criminal misuse – that is what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) protects against by American suers…. the loophole the American anti-gunners were hoping to exploit by having a foreign government sue. Unanimous decision against? Let’s say Mexico was bitch-slapped.
And then we get to the woman who was discriminated against – a promotion went to a less qualified lesbian, and when the woman complained, she was demoted and her place taken by a gay fella, also reputedly less-qualified.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals tossed her case out at an early stage because she did not meet the higher legal bar that the appeals court required in discrimination cases for members of a majority group.
Higher legal Bar?
Writing for the majority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed to the text of the federal employment discrimination law, which draws no distinction between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. By establishing the same protections for every individual, she said, Congress “left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs.”
The decision is likely to have widespread effects. In all, five federal appeals courts -–covering 20 states and the District of Columbia — have the same high bar that was struck down on Thursday for majority plaintiffs, including white and straight employees.
Smack! Starting to smart yet? This one goes back to the lower courts, presumably the 6th.
Last but not least, Catholic Charities had been trying to get the same exemption from unemployment taxes that ‘normal’ churches (ie. Catholic, Protestant, etc.) get in Wisconsin.
The state had maintained that the social ministry group didn’t qualify for the exemption because it is not a proselytizing entity.
Never knew that to be a church you HAVE to proselytize… and apparently the Supremes didn’t either.
Reacting to the decision, Eric Rassbach, who represented the Catholic Charities Bureau, said, “Wisconsin shouldn’t have picked this fight in the first place. It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion.”
Three unanimous decisions… doesn’t seem to occur that often. Justice Sotomayor wrote the decision on this one.
Category: Society, Supreme Court
And why everyone wants to be a victim and a minority.
SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
“The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals tossed her case out at an early stage because she did not meet the higher legal bar that the appeals court required in discrimination cases for members of a majority group.”
SCOTUS bitch slapped thhe Mexican grubermint ’bout as hard as Sam Houston did at Rio Jacinto.
Equal protection of the law means exactly that. Everybody has the same level of “equal protection”. There should never be a law giving one group “more” protection than any other group.
I guess these “Charities” are going to have to pass another offering plate around to cover their unemployment taxes.
I think you need to re-read that last decision. The SCOTUS ruled Catholic Charities is ELEGIBLE for the same exemption as other religious organizations.