From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
Channeling
Justice O'Connor
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court decided an employment discrimination case in
favor of the defendant. Plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter showed that she had received
a series of raises smaller than those her male colleagues got, but the question
before the court was whether she acted soon enough. The Civil Rights Act of
1964 requires aggrieved employees to file a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment
practice occurred."
At issue in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is whether the 180-day clock starts ticking anew each time an employee claiming a wage disparity receives a paycheck. The court ruled 5-4 that it does not--that the "alleged unlawful employment practice" consists of the setting of pay rates, not the actual payment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the dissent.
A couple of things struck us about the way Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times covered this decision. First is the insidious blurring of the legislative and judicial functions:
Title VII's prohibition of workplace discrimination applies not just to pay but also to specific actions like refusal to hire or promote, denial of a desired transfer and dismissal. Justice Ginsburg argued in her dissenting opinion that while these "singular discrete acts" are readily apparent to an employee who can then make a timely complaint, pay discrimination often presents a more ambiguous picture. She said the court should treat a pay claim as it treated a claim for a "hostile work environment" in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge to be filed "based on the cumulative effect of individual acts."
In response, Justice Alito dismissed this as a "policy argument" with "no support in the statute." . . .
In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the decision, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on civil rights.
"Overturn" is Greenhouse's word, not Ginsburg's, and Greenhouse should know better. Higher courts can overturn the decisions of lower courts, and courts can overturn their own precedents. But the Supreme Court is the final word on the interpretation of federal law. What Ginsburg actually urged Congress to do is enact a new law.
The distinction between making and interpreting laws is fundamental to America's system of separation of powers. It is a distinction that has been blurred in recent decades by a Supreme Court determined to act as a sort of hyperlegislature--most notably in the area of abortion, where the court has conjured literally from nothing (i.e., from a constitution that is silent on the topic) a nearly unlimited right to abort a pregnancy, coupled with an elaborate scheme for determining what regulations on abortion pose an "undue burden."
The liberal left in America--of which Greenhouse is a part--isn't much interested in the separation of powers; by and large it is concerned only with outcomes: Abortion on demand, by any means necessary! Greenhouse's reference to Congress "overturning" a Supreme Court decision--as if the legislature were an ultrasupreme court--shows how deeply internalized this unconcern for the legislative-judicial distinction has become.
This passage from the Greenhouse piece, meanwhile, is just funny:
As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact of Justice Alito's presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing the opposite outcome.
Really? Wouldn't Justice O'Connor have carefully weighed the arguments on both sides and come to a conclusion on the merits? Is it really Greenhouse's view that O'Connor would adhere to some sort of party line instead?
The
Reuterville Defense
The Associated Press has a little fun at the expense of rival wire service Reuters,
with a story headlined "Suspect Says He's an Activist, Not a Terrorist":
An American student extradited from London to face charges that he provided al-Qaeda fighters with equipment to attack U.S. soldiers is an activist, not a terrorist, his lawyer said Tuesday after the man pleaded not guilty in court. . . .
"He is not a terrorist. He is an academic. He's been a political activist," his lawyer said.
It's just like the Reuters slogan, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Of course, this cuts both ways: One man's activist is another man's terrorist. So maybe when someone calls himself an "activist," we should construe it as an admission, not an excuse.
Al
Otter Brigades
Here's a quick-and-dirty guide to Palestinian politics. Some Palestinian leaders
support terrorism in principle, but oppose it in practice when it is clearly
counterproductive. These are called "moderates." As for the extremists,
well, here's a report from Damascus in London's Guardian:
Khaled Mashal, the influential political leader of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, insists attacks on Israel will continue despite overwhelming Israeli retaliation that has cost scores of lives in the Gaza Strip in the past two weeks.
Speaking in Damascus yesterday he asserted it was the right of the Palestinians to resist "Zionist aggression" regardless of whether their actions were effective. . . .
"Under occupation people don't ask whether their means are effective in hurting the enemy," he told the Guardian.
This suggests a new Hamas motto: "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. And we're just the guys to do it."
Imaginary
Quandary?
A CNN story is titled "Palestinian's Quandary: Working for U.S. in Iraq."
Here's how reporter Cal Perry describes the "quandary":
Inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, Samir Zedan dons a flak jacket and helmet. But Zedan is not your typical high-level U.S. government employee: He is Palestinian.
It's a moral dilemma for a Palestinian: working for the American government in Iraq while his family lives in the West Bank, where they face restrictions imposed by the Israeli military. The situation clearly haunts him but also reaffirms his humanity.
Here is a complete list of quotes (excepting a few sentence fragments) from Zedan that CNN includes in this piece:
- "Dialogue is the only answer to achieve a political goal. I can see the
negative impact of violence on my own people these days. Any attack that involves
the lives of innocent civilians is an act of terror--be it in Tel Aviv, Gaza
or in Baghdad. Terror is terror."
- "I do believe that I am living two difficult situations, the one in Iraq,
and the one in Palestine. My family is quite lucky."
- "I always keep the hope in my heart to see the peace process revitalized,
where we can see again the generosity of the United States, pervaded by its
aid--to revitalize the economy there as it did in the '90s."
- "After speaking to the Iraqi people, I was stunned to see how much they
have suffered under the former regime. I started seeing a bright picture--that
this war could lead to a brighter future for both Iraq and the region."
- "I strongly believe that Iraqi journalists will carry forward the torch
of the freedom of the press--something that has not existed here in Iraq before."
- "I am sure that I am leaving Iraq a different person than the person I was
when I arrived more than two years ago. I can see clearer that the division
between fair and foul is quite visible. I will carry with me a lot of memories.
Both good and bad."
- "I feel like Iraq has become a part of me, and many times I have this thing of search for identity: Who I am? Am I Iraqi? Am I Palestinian? Am I Christian? What am I?"
Zedan makes clear in that last quote that he has questions about his national and religious allegiance. But there's nothing at all to suggest the "moral dilemma" that CNN ascribes to him. Quite the contrary, he has a lot more moral clarity than the typical CNN reporter.
Pundit
Wannabes
Here are a couple of more examples of writers who wish they were political pundits
showing us why it's good that they aren't. Chicago Sun-Times television critic
Doug Elfman has this to say about a new show:
The trouble with "Starter Wife" isn't [actress Debra] Messing or money. The show just kind of lies there, like the bird poop that fell on our president's face at a press conference the other day. Oh, I mean, his shirt. Sorry. Wishful thinking.
Ivan Maisel, a commentator for the sports network ESPN, defends University of Arkansas football coach Houston Nutt, who is dealing with accusations of personal scandal--and guess whose fault it is?
A self-described supporter of Arkansas athletics acquired Nutt's cell phone records through a Freedom of Information Act request. Media members across the nation, including this one, received pdf files detailing Nutt's communications.
The innuendo came at no extra charge. Nutt's detractors have put him in the impossible position of proving a negative--he must have cheated on his wife because there is no proof that he did not.
It is a maneuver borrowed from national politics, Rovian in style and execution. Karl Rove, the chief political advisor to President George W. Bush, made his career on attacking an opponent's strength. In the 2004 presidential election, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eviscerated Sen. John Kerry's stature as a war hero. Kerry's candidacy never recovered.
Rove had no visible affiliation with the Swift Boat Veterans, except that a tactic he made famous benefited his candidate.
Three years later, the tactic has been imported to Arkansas and used against Nutt.
Doug and Ivan, we're sure you're very good at TV criticism and sports analysis, respectively. But please leave political punditry to the pros. We offer this advice for your own good.
You'll
Catch More Flies With Honey Than With Groin-Kick Requests
"Canada Seeks Man With Groin-Kick Request"--headline, Associated Press,
May 28
Not
Necessarily in That Order
"Texas Mother Kills Herself, 3 Children"--headline, Associated Press,
May 30
Longest
Surgery on Record
"Doctors Remove Bullet After 64 Years"--headline, Associated Press,
May 29
How
Will Stanley Open His Cup Now?
"Ducks Take Stanley Cup Opener"--headline, Reuters, May 29
'How
He Got Into My Underwear I'll Never Know'
"Man Wrestles Leopard in His Underwear"--headline, Arutz Sheva (Israel),
May 29
Help
Wanted
"Police Looking for Bogus 'Faith Healer' "--headline, San Francisco
Chronicle, May 30
News You Can Use
- "Health, Wealth Predict Quality of Life for Older Adults"--headline,
Reuters,
May 30
- "Kids Don't Tell Parents the Truth About Online Activities"--headline, TechWeb.com, May 25
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Dead Sturgeon Free of Disease"--headline, Appleton
(Wis.) Post-Crescent, May 29
- "Search Warrant Not Executed at Vick Home"--headline, MSNBC.com,
May 29
- "New Poll Reveals Canadian Parents Believe Teaching Their Kids to Swim Is the Best Way to Prevent Drowning"--headline, press release, Safe Kids Canada, May 28
Animal
Farm
In the competition for worst trivialization of Nazi Germany, Ellen
Goodman is getting some competition. The Boston Globe reports that officials
in Cambridge, Mass., are considering a new rule that would "ban nonresident
pooches from roaming off leash" at Fresh Pond Reservation, a local park.
The plan would "outfit Cambridge canines with bright red medallions, so
the rangers who patrol the park can see which dogs belong and which do not."
Pete Wilkins, a resident of nearby Belmont, thinks his dog, Babe, is being treated just like--well, here's the quote:
"I was brought up in England before World War II and saw happenings in Europe and discrimination against groups," Wilkins said last week he as he watched Babe chew a stick. "This whole business is a retrograde step."
When they came for me, there was no one left to bark out.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michele Schiesser, Mark Van Der Molen, Rod Pennington, Michael Segal, Radu Aghinii, Mike Unger, Phil Klein, Chad Giebel, Sid Knowles, Michael Aracic, Chris Desmond, Doug Black, Kathleen Sullivan, Jim Orheim, Shabtai Atlow, Yaakov Marsh, Fred Medero, Anne Runck, Tom Searles, Andrew Robinson, Ike Andrews, Scott Wright, Mike Stevens and Dave Wheeler. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: The Senate bill is worse than current law for skilled immigrants.
- Norman Podhoretz (from Commentary): I hope and pray that President Bush will bomb Iran.
- Taylor Dinerman: Noshed in space: Food worth writing home to Earth about.
