On Jul 13, 7:09 am, Hypa...@giganews.com wrote:
> What must/could the Congress do to rectify situations such as the
> one where a female employee was not allowed to obtain
> redress for long-time sexual discrimination because the Court held
> that she did not complain -- IIRC -- about a specific instance within
> certain time constraints.
Since that one was a matter of statutory interpretation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Congress can, if it so chooses, amend the statute it passed, either to clarify that what it originally meant was contrary to SCOTUS' new interpretation, or to effect an actual change in the law as public policy on the issue evolves. This has happened quite a few times in history, although I can't think of a recent example offhand and am not going to look it up, Since Congress makes statutory law, Congress can just as easily change, or repeal, a statutory law. I have heard from several sources that Congress may attempt to do just that with the equal-pay issue, since there is major popular support for such action not to mention making the law more sensible and fair.
> Other horrors involve screwing bankrupts in favor of corporations...
Bankruptcy law is also statutory and can be amended by Congress, although keep in mind that Congress recently did just that to make BK law tougher on debtors, and more favorable to creditors especially with consumer debt. Don't assume that Congress is going to be either more liberal or more conservative on some issue than SCOTUS is; in different times the tables may be reversed, but for now, these branches of government are on the same page and so a statutory amendment is not likely to happen anytime soon.
> the "free speech" issue of a schoolboy with a fun sign...
That's different. First Amendment issues are matters of constitutional interpretation, and SCOTUS is the final word there. Of course, a later court may overrule itself, the way the "separate but equal" rule of Plessy v. Ferguson was overruled by Brown v. Board of Ed. on constitutional equal protection grounds.
The only way Congress can overturn a SCOTUS constitutional ruling is by passing a constitutional amendment, a long and difficult process that has had little recent success and is usually a bad idea if it is an attempt to constitutionalize the societal mores of the moment (e.g. Prohibition of alcohol) rather than to enshrine etermal principles of civil liberties (such as in the Reconstruction-era amendments banning slavery, giving former slaves the vote, and mandating equal protection and due process in state as well as federal government) or to specifically empower the Feds to do things they otherwise could not do (e.g. income tax).
I mean, what _could_ the Congress do to amend the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ... and this time we really mean it, even if you're a high school student allegedly promoting drug abuse among minors, that means you, no ifs ands or buts, say whatever you want?" What would that do to existing First Amendment jurisprudence about, frex, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or uttering "fighting words," or prohibiting obscene speech, or for that matter, regulating what can be said or shown to minors?
IMO the free-speech constitutional language is already admirably clear and broad, and SCOTUS has generally done a fairly good job of striking the necessary balance between liberty and order, with an occasional misstep that they can much more easily correct the next time they have to interpret the provision than if each exception were cast in stone. Attempting to carve out written special cases would only muck this up and make it that much _harder_ for SCOTUS to achieve that balance next time around. Better to wait for a more liberty-minded court to overrule its own present narrow interpretation of sound eternal principles.
> Bottom line: What could/must Congress do to override these
> decisions?
Wait and see about the equal-pay filing deadline issue. Don't hold your breath on the others.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment