The role of the judiciary, and all branches of government, is something that any good citizen should understand. Unfortunately, it seems as if a majority have no clue what the proper function of the courts is. Shockingly, this even includes current and former members of the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court once again split by the thinnest of margins ruled yesterday that workers may not sue their employers over unequal pay caused by discrimination alleged to have occurred years earlier.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The decision moved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to read a dissent from the bench, a usually rare practice that she has now employed twice in the past six weeks to criticize the majority for opinions that she said undermine women’s rights.

Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg’s voice was as precise and emotionless as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.

“In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” she said.

She’s right, 5 members of the court are indifferent to those considerations. As they should be. The court’s single function is to apply the constitution and the laws passed by the legislature.

“We apply the statute as written, and this means that any unlawful employment practice, including those involving compensation, must be presented . . . within the period prescribed by the statute,” Alito said.

And that’s all there is to it. If Ginsburg and the feminists have a problem with the law their recourse is through the legislature that can change it, not the courts.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS