There was a case recently decided by the Supremes, as I occasionally refer to the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Plaintiff (the person who sues) was named Ledbetter, so the case is naturally known as Ledbetter (too obvious? sorry).
To understand the case we need to understand something about how one part of the law works. If you have a basis for suing someone, there's a time limitation for filing that suit. If you don't file it within that time, your lawsuit will be subject to being dismissed.
With that out of the way, it's easier to understand the Ledbetter decision. Ms. Ledbetter sued for sexual discrimination, alleging that men who did the same work she did had been getting paid more than she did. If her allegation is true, under the law she'd be entitled to collect money from her now-former employer.
Without deciding the merits of her case, the Supremes decided that she wasn't entitled to have her case proceed, because the time to bring her suit had started running on the first paycheck she received where a man allegedly received more for the same work.
Since Ms. Ledbetter says she didn't find out about the discriminatory pay until years later, she said that was unfair and not what the law intended.
The other day both houses of Congress passed a law that said, in effect, that Ms. Ledbetter's correct and the Supremes were wrong.
While Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court ruling, their legislation -- assuming President Obama signs the law -- will have the impact on any future such case that a person brings to court. Under the new law, the old law will be interpreted to mean that the statute begins to run when the supposed victim discovers the discrimination.
As a side note, I'm not characterizing Ms. Ledbetter or any person who claims discrimination as a fake. I use the phrase "supposed victim," only because until something's proved in a court, it's presumed to be "alleged" or "supposed," because the matter hasn't been decided.
As a matter of logic and fairness, the Court was wrong and Congress was right. If you don't know of something that victimizes you and causes you financial damage, how are you supposed to know that the clock is ticking on your right to sue?
This demonstrates that elections matter and the one that elected our 43rd president created a court that's very anti-employee. But as we all know, we've just inaugurated his replacement.
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Crying About An Election
As this is written, Barak Obama is scheduled to be inaugurated later today.
Over the weekend, I was watching CNN and a young African-American man of 14 was talking about the night of the election. He had to go to bed before the results were in because his mom told him that it was a big night, but rules were rules and bedtime was bedtime.
His mom woke him a couple of hours later and he saw that she was crying. "What's wrong, Mom?"
"Not a thing," she replied. "Obama won."
Hearing that story brought a lump to my throat and put me on the verge of a tear, both because I felt -- to a limited extent -- the joy and meaning she experienced and because I remembered another election with another kid being awakened.
That kid was me.
It was late on the night of June 4, 1968 and I was that young teenager who'd gone to bed early. It wasn't because of a strict bedtime rule, but because I was exhausted and put myself to bed. Earlier that day, I'd been at the Kennedy for President headquarters in Van Nuys, California.
At this distance in time I can't remember specifically what I did in my nameless volunteer capacity, but I believe it involved calling registered Democrats and arranging for their transportation to the polls. We worked until the polls closed and then departed the headquarters which was located across the street from a Chevy plant (what could be more appropriate for a Democratic headquarters?).
I'd been invited to go to the Ambassador for the celebration of Robert Kennedy's expected primary victory. I declined because I'd have been the 7th person in a six-person car. Being overweight at the time, I was both concerned for others' discomfort and self-conscious about my own.
As a result of course, I missed both the joy of Kennedy's victory over Eugene McCarthy (and inferentially, Lyndon Johnson, the then-despised architect of the morass in Viet Nam), and the horror that followed.
So it looked good but not certain when I went to sleep.
I awakened to my dad's touch on my shoulder. I vaguely remember asking what was wrong, because he never awakened me under normal circumstances. "They shot Kennedy."
He wasn't crying and I didn't, since big boys didn't cry back then. But I got up and watched the coverage and we were up until late. Kennedy wasn't dead, but he was in the hospital and he lingered for a couple of days.
It was a terribly sad time and when people cried, it clearly wasn't for the same reason as people have cried at the news of Obama's victory (or today during his inauguration).
Those of us who wanted RFK to win felt as I do now, that the election of someone can make a MAJOR difference.
At that time, in that place, it seemed like the end of everything good. Today, I'm thrilled as I've been since November.
I'm worried, of course, about Obama's safety, because I keep hearing people -- mostly but not exclusively racists -- say that he won't live beyond....and they finish the sentence in different ways. Of course, I heard them say that before and during the campaign, and he obviously defeated those predictions.
I'm a little more confident about his safety because I don't think that the people who wanted both Kennedys and Dr. King killed care much about Obama.
In any event, the near future looks a lot better than it did 2 years ago. Bush isn't president and Obama is. We have nothing to fear but fear itself (did someone else say that first?).
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
Over the weekend, I was watching CNN and a young African-American man of 14 was talking about the night of the election. He had to go to bed before the results were in because his mom told him that it was a big night, but rules were rules and bedtime was bedtime.
His mom woke him a couple of hours later and he saw that she was crying. "What's wrong, Mom?"
"Not a thing," she replied. "Obama won."
Hearing that story brought a lump to my throat and put me on the verge of a tear, both because I felt -- to a limited extent -- the joy and meaning she experienced and because I remembered another election with another kid being awakened.
That kid was me.
It was late on the night of June 4, 1968 and I was that young teenager who'd gone to bed early. It wasn't because of a strict bedtime rule, but because I was exhausted and put myself to bed. Earlier that day, I'd been at the Kennedy for President headquarters in Van Nuys, California.
At this distance in time I can't remember specifically what I did in my nameless volunteer capacity, but I believe it involved calling registered Democrats and arranging for their transportation to the polls. We worked until the polls closed and then departed the headquarters which was located across the street from a Chevy plant (what could be more appropriate for a Democratic headquarters?).
I'd been invited to go to the Ambassador for the celebration of Robert Kennedy's expected primary victory. I declined because I'd have been the 7th person in a six-person car. Being overweight at the time, I was both concerned for others' discomfort and self-conscious about my own.
As a result of course, I missed both the joy of Kennedy's victory over Eugene McCarthy (and inferentially, Lyndon Johnson, the then-despised architect of the morass in Viet Nam), and the horror that followed.
So it looked good but not certain when I went to sleep.
I awakened to my dad's touch on my shoulder. I vaguely remember asking what was wrong, because he never awakened me under normal circumstances. "They shot Kennedy."
He wasn't crying and I didn't, since big boys didn't cry back then. But I got up and watched the coverage and we were up until late. Kennedy wasn't dead, but he was in the hospital and he lingered for a couple of days.
It was a terribly sad time and when people cried, it clearly wasn't for the same reason as people have cried at the news of Obama's victory (or today during his inauguration).
Those of us who wanted RFK to win felt as I do now, that the election of someone can make a MAJOR difference.
At that time, in that place, it seemed like the end of everything good. Today, I'm thrilled as I've been since November.
I'm worried, of course, about Obama's safety, because I keep hearing people -- mostly but not exclusively racists -- say that he won't live beyond....and they finish the sentence in different ways. Of course, I heard them say that before and during the campaign, and he obviously defeated those predictions.
I'm a little more confident about his safety because I don't think that the people who wanted both Kennedys and Dr. King killed care much about Obama.
In any event, the near future looks a lot better than it did 2 years ago. Bush isn't president and Obama is. We have nothing to fear but fear itself (did someone else say that first?).
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Rights for Criminals
Criminal rights should be limited in my opinion. By that I mean that if someone's convicted of a crime, they should experience some deprivation of their freedom and if they're dangerous, they should be kept away from the rest of us for a period of time to protect the rest of us.
On the other hand someone who's legally accused of a crime should have a number of rights, because their opponent is the government and the government has a wide variety of tools that individuals don't.
One of the rights we tend to take for granted is the right provided by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right has been amplified by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court over the years. We have the right to remain silent, when questioned by police officers, so we avoid saying something that could be used against us in court. We also have the right to be told of that right to silence.
Also, police cannot stop anyone at anytime to search for anything, just because they want to. You and I may have nothing to fear from such a search (OK, I'm not too sure about you), but we have the right to move about freely without fear of such a stop for no reason. One of the things that's become part of the law on this subject is that the police have to have what's called "probable cause" to stop you to search for evidence of a crime.
A number of decades ago, the Supreme Court formulated something called the exclusionary rule. That rule was designed to discourage police misconduct when it came to going too far in searches and seizures. This isn't to suggest that there was a lot of police misconduct, but it did happen occasionally. The exclusionary rule says that if a police officer stops you and doesn't have probable cause or doesn't advise you of your right to remain silent, and evidence is developed as a result of those failures, that evidence will be excluded from any later court hearing.
As said, the rule isn't designed to protect the criminal who is stopped. It's designed to stop the police from mistreating all or any of us, because it teaches that criminals may go free if the police don't conduct themselves properly.
A recent case narrows all of our rights. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that if the police make a stop based on a warrant and find evidence of a crime, that evidence can be used even if the police records on the warrant were wrong.
Here's what happened. The defendant was driving in front of a police car and the police did what they have the absolute right to do. They ran the license plate and found that there was an outstanding warrant for the owner of that plate. They had the right to stop the person if there was a warrant and they had the right to arrest him and search his car. All legit.
But the problem was that the police's records were in error. The warrant had been recalled and there was no outstanding warrant. The problem is that the police, in the belief that the warrant was legitimate, found drugs in the possession of the defendant and prosecuted him for this additional crime. The defendant said that since there was no warrant, there was no probable cause for the stop and therefore, the evidence should be excluded.
The prosecutor admitted that if it hadn't been for being told of the warrant there was no probable cause.
The Court said that the police acted in good faith (there's no question that the officers did) and that in weighing the benefits of excluding the evidence and letting the criminal off the hook versus enforcing the law when the police acted in good faith, they would allow the evidence to be used.
Opinion: This decision is dead wrong.
Again, if you assume that the rights of the non-criminal are at risk when police powers of search and seizure are broadened, this becomes important. But let's look at the use of the rule and its effect.
If that evidence had been excluded, while it's true that the individual criminal would've gone free, the fact is that police departments around the country would be encouraged to clean-up their record keeping so that a mistaken stop based on a non-existent warning wouldn't result in a case being thrown out.
Instead, police are now encouraged to keep old warrant records on their lists, because it provides an excuse to make a stop and allows the evidence so discovered to be used. I've never had a warrant issued against me, but if one had been mistakenly issued or issued correctly and then withdrawn, I could be at constant risk of being stopped for nothing. In some states that could result in an arrest for possession of a small amount of drugs, and there are many problems associated with police stops of men of minority groups, too complex to discuss in this posting.
But the bottom line reality is that all of our rights have been diminished by the 5-4 decision, and we can only hope this will be corrected in a subsequent decision.
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
On the other hand someone who's legally accused of a crime should have a number of rights, because their opponent is the government and the government has a wide variety of tools that individuals don't.
One of the rights we tend to take for granted is the right provided by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. That right has been amplified by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court over the years. We have the right to remain silent, when questioned by police officers, so we avoid saying something that could be used against us in court. We also have the right to be told of that right to silence.
Also, police cannot stop anyone at anytime to search for anything, just because they want to. You and I may have nothing to fear from such a search (OK, I'm not too sure about you), but we have the right to move about freely without fear of such a stop for no reason. One of the things that's become part of the law on this subject is that the police have to have what's called "probable cause" to stop you to search for evidence of a crime.
A number of decades ago, the Supreme Court formulated something called the exclusionary rule. That rule was designed to discourage police misconduct when it came to going too far in searches and seizures. This isn't to suggest that there was a lot of police misconduct, but it did happen occasionally. The exclusionary rule says that if a police officer stops you and doesn't have probable cause or doesn't advise you of your right to remain silent, and evidence is developed as a result of those failures, that evidence will be excluded from any later court hearing.
As said, the rule isn't designed to protect the criminal who is stopped. It's designed to stop the police from mistreating all or any of us, because it teaches that criminals may go free if the police don't conduct themselves properly.
A recent case narrows all of our rights. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that if the police make a stop based on a warrant and find evidence of a crime, that evidence can be used even if the police records on the warrant were wrong.
Here's what happened. The defendant was driving in front of a police car and the police did what they have the absolute right to do. They ran the license plate and found that there was an outstanding warrant for the owner of that plate. They had the right to stop the person if there was a warrant and they had the right to arrest him and search his car. All legit.
But the problem was that the police's records were in error. The warrant had been recalled and there was no outstanding warrant. The problem is that the police, in the belief that the warrant was legitimate, found drugs in the possession of the defendant and prosecuted him for this additional crime. The defendant said that since there was no warrant, there was no probable cause for the stop and therefore, the evidence should be excluded.
The prosecutor admitted that if it hadn't been for being told of the warrant there was no probable cause.
The Court said that the police acted in good faith (there's no question that the officers did) and that in weighing the benefits of excluding the evidence and letting the criminal off the hook versus enforcing the law when the police acted in good faith, they would allow the evidence to be used.
Opinion: This decision is dead wrong.
Again, if you assume that the rights of the non-criminal are at risk when police powers of search and seizure are broadened, this becomes important. But let's look at the use of the rule and its effect.
If that evidence had been excluded, while it's true that the individual criminal would've gone free, the fact is that police departments around the country would be encouraged to clean-up their record keeping so that a mistaken stop based on a non-existent warning wouldn't result in a case being thrown out.
Instead, police are now encouraged to keep old warrant records on their lists, because it provides an excuse to make a stop and allows the evidence so discovered to be used. I've never had a warrant issued against me, but if one had been mistakenly issued or issued correctly and then withdrawn, I could be at constant risk of being stopped for nothing. In some states that could result in an arrest for possession of a small amount of drugs, and there are many problems associated with police stops of men of minority groups, too complex to discuss in this posting.
But the bottom line reality is that all of our rights have been diminished by the 5-4 decision, and we can only hope this will be corrected in a subsequent decision.
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
Monday, January 5, 2009
Gaza Gaza
One question seems unbelievably simple to answer: Is Israel justified in its invasion of Gaza?
That the question is even posed is based on the fact that when we were vacationing the other day, in a university community, there were protesters on the sidewalk, saying Israel had to leave Gaza and that the U.S. should stop giving so much money to Israel, based on the latter's conduct in Gaza.
I believe that there should be a Palestinian state. I believe that Israel has done some incredibly stupid things with regard to the achievement of peace and relations with their neighbors.
But this time they're right.
The Palestinian apologists are saying that Israel caused the problem by a number of acts, including an economic blockade of Gaza. OK, maybe that blockade is a terrible thing.
But that doesn't justify dropping rockets on civilian targets in Israel. It's clearly a response by Israel to those rocket attacks that generated the bombings and now the invasion. It's a fairly understandable rule: you drop rockets on me and I could get angry and retaliate.
That Hamas situates itself and its rocket launchers amid civilians is without question. That's a tactic to make its adversary look unreasonable. They know that if they locate themselves where women and children live, when Israel attacks them where they are, innocent lives will be lost and the bodies will be shown on the evening news in the U.S.
Some have said that the rocket attacks only killed "x" number of Israelis and Israel's response is therefore disproportionate. For starters, I have to admit that I like disproportionate responses. If you push me and I just push you back, the odds are good that you'll push me again or escalate by hitting me in the face. If you start by pushing me and I slam you on the head with a baseball bat, you may be either unable or unlikely to push me or otherwise try to harm me again.
Aside from that, however, the response is in proportion.
When rockets are falling on roofs in your neighborhood, life is unbearable. If you can get at the source of those rockets, and stop them from raining on your block, you've done a great service.
And that's what Israel is trying to do. All other comments on Israel being an interloper in the Middle East or anything else, are nonsense. It's all about stopping the rockets.
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
That the question is even posed is based on the fact that when we were vacationing the other day, in a university community, there were protesters on the sidewalk, saying Israel had to leave Gaza and that the U.S. should stop giving so much money to Israel, based on the latter's conduct in Gaza.
I believe that there should be a Palestinian state. I believe that Israel has done some incredibly stupid things with regard to the achievement of peace and relations with their neighbors.
But this time they're right.
The Palestinian apologists are saying that Israel caused the problem by a number of acts, including an economic blockade of Gaza. OK, maybe that blockade is a terrible thing.
But that doesn't justify dropping rockets on civilian targets in Israel. It's clearly a response by Israel to those rocket attacks that generated the bombings and now the invasion. It's a fairly understandable rule: you drop rockets on me and I could get angry and retaliate.
That Hamas situates itself and its rocket launchers amid civilians is without question. That's a tactic to make its adversary look unreasonable. They know that if they locate themselves where women and children live, when Israel attacks them where they are, innocent lives will be lost and the bodies will be shown on the evening news in the U.S.
Some have said that the rocket attacks only killed "x" number of Israelis and Israel's response is therefore disproportionate. For starters, I have to admit that I like disproportionate responses. If you push me and I just push you back, the odds are good that you'll push me again or escalate by hitting me in the face. If you start by pushing me and I slam you on the head with a baseball bat, you may be either unable or unlikely to push me or otherwise try to harm me again.
Aside from that, however, the response is in proportion.
When rockets are falling on roofs in your neighborhood, life is unbearable. If you can get at the source of those rockets, and stop them from raining on your block, you've done a great service.
And that's what Israel is trying to do. All other comments on Israel being an interloper in the Middle East or anything else, are nonsense. It's all about stopping the rockets.
If you'd like to read my writing on other subjects, you can try: http://www.JeffOnHealth.blogspot.com OR http://www.JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Plan for This Blog
My plans for this blog are simple. I'm going to mouth off on it about my opinions on politics on the assumption that my views are no less worthwhile than anyone else's.
Writing on this subject involves a certain conceit, though it doesn't require being conceited. It wouldn't hurt. It's just that the latter isn't required.
My qualifications for this self-selected job are the same as those possessed by folks like Rush Limbaugh or Sean on the Right and Randi Rhodes or Rachel Maddow on the Left. I have deep and great respect for one of those four, but you'll have to guess or figure out which one. The qualifications possessed by all of those august characters (though this is written in January) and me are: None.
I don't know what qualifies you to be a pundit or columnist or blogger, except that you've had a long interest in a subject and someone's told you that you seem to know what you're talking about. That's happened to me just as it's happened to them.
OK, the numbers are probably a little different, but that's not the point.
I'm guessing that only one of us majored in Political Science, but that's not really a qualification either.
So you get to decide. Find me interesting or find me boring. Only one person can decide for you, and if I have to tell you who that is, you may not be qualified to judge me anyway.
If you'd like to read my writing on a subject about which I have actual experience, try: http://JeffonHealth.blogspot.com.
Welcome to my world.
Writing on this subject involves a certain conceit, though it doesn't require being conceited. It wouldn't hurt. It's just that the latter isn't required.
My qualifications for this self-selected job are the same as those possessed by folks like Rush Limbaugh or Sean on the Right and Randi Rhodes or Rachel Maddow on the Left. I have deep and great respect for one of those four, but you'll have to guess or figure out which one. The qualifications possessed by all of those august characters (though this is written in January) and me are: None.
I don't know what qualifies you to be a pundit or columnist or blogger, except that you've had a long interest in a subject and someone's told you that you seem to know what you're talking about. That's happened to me just as it's happened to them.
OK, the numbers are probably a little different, but that's not the point.
I'm guessing that only one of us majored in Political Science, but that's not really a qualification either.
So you get to decide. Find me interesting or find me boring. Only one person can decide for you, and if I have to tell you who that is, you may not be qualified to judge me anyway.
If you'd like to read my writing on a subject about which I have actual experience, try: http://JeffonHealth.blogspot.com.
Welcome to my world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)