The Supreme Court ruled against women today. Again. Not surprising, since they do that every chance they get.
I would not be surprised if they next affirmed a decision from a lower court upholding a new Texas law requiring all women to wear Burkas, or to stay inside unless accompanied by a male escort, or authorizing stoning to death of any woman who wears lipstick without her husband's permission.
The fact that the highest court in our land exhibits such ongoing, committed hatred towards women should make all women in this country sleep uneasily at night. I'm not entirely surprised at Alito and Roberts, both of whom are fanatical right-wing extremist Catholics of the most bizarre version, probably wearing those metal leg-rings with spikes going into their flesh under their hair-shirts and pants every day to show their devotion to God, to show their commitment to upholding the Catholic Church's hatred of women. And Clarence Thomas never did one bit of work since getting his cushy seat on the court, just asking what did Alito say then saying "Yeah, me too." But I'm surprised that only two of the judges saw fit to condemn the appalling violation of law based on gender discrimination and historical bias against women.
The Supreme Court sends the clear message that women do not matter, and businesses and government should do everything in their power to enslave women and deny them their rights.
Remember, not long ago the Supreme Court upheld a "gotcha" rule that gave a free pass to companies that discriminate against women in pay by saying that if the woman doesn't find out about it pretty quickly, and file suit, then she will be barred. The fact that businesses try to keep their discrimination a secret, and prohibit employees from discussing their pay, held no sway with this team of bigots.
So today we get another ruling from the court affirming discrimination against women in the employment field. The issue before the court was whether, if a woman had taken maternity leave during her career, could that period count towards her pension eligibility. The court ruled no, screw the women. In summary.
In 1979, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, and it barred businesses from treating pregnancy leaves differently from other disability leaves. But the Supreme Court said that if the materity leave was taken before that, the business could deny the woman employee credit for her maternity leave, even though that same business would give the male employee credit for a disability leave due to a back problem, or surgery, or cancer. Discrimination is okay under the law, according to these women-hating extremists on the court, as long as the victims of discrimination are female.
So based on this ruling today, any man who was out on disability before 1979 for a medical condition can count the period of his absence as part of the time he needs to qualify for a pension. Any woman who was out on disability before 1979 for a pregnancy can not count that time towards her pension. Straight-up gender discrimination. And the Supreme Court, with its crew of women-hating fanatics, says that's just fine with them.
Which is why we need 5 women on the Supreme Court. All this discussion about do we need "another" woman on the court, or should President Obama ignore issues like gender and instead choose based on "merit" is doubly offensive. First, there are as many qualified women for the spot as there are men. Second, I don't see the issue as "choosing" based on gender. I see it as disregarding the traditional biased method of choosing based only gender and race -- white and male -- rather than choosing based on merit.
If merit was the criteria, then half the judges on all the courts would be women, so obviously the selection process has historically been based primarily on gender and race considerations. White men represent about 35% of the population, but they hold about 90% of the top jobs in this country, including the judge positions. That's because of bias against everyone else. In fact, given the relatively few people with a college degree -- let's even say half -- it really comes down to 17% of the people in this country (white males with college education) get 90% of the best jobs set aside for them based solely on race and gender. It's pretty nice to have most of the competition barred from entry.
Does it make a difference having only men on the courts? You bet. Ask any woman who has been the victim of discrimination in hiring, promotion, wages and benefits. Which means, ask any woman who works whether she has suffered economically because of gender discrimination. Almost to a person, they have. Now the court says it's okay to steal from women.
"The high court overturned a lower court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions. .... Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. ... The decision could affect thousands of women who took pregnancy leaves decades ago and now are headed toward retirement. A closely divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that time should count in determining pensions. The Bush administration had urged the court to reverse the San Francisco-based appeals court, with Justice Department lawyers arguing that a decision favoring the women might harm other employees who could lose expected benefits if the company cannot afford to put more money into the pension system. "
[In 2007, Lily Ledbetter sued for discrimination] "after finding out after almost two decades that she made less than her male peers. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote in May 2007, threw out her complaint, saying she had failed to sue within the 180-day deadline after a discriminatory pay decision was made. " [Congress since passed a law reversing the effect of the Ledbetter decision].