Justices Further Resist Finding Right to Sue

[flashl]

Source: Washington Post

There was a time when Supreme Court justices peered into federal statutes outlawing discrimination and found between the lines the right of the aggrieved to take his complaint to court. What good was the law, they reasoned, without a means to enforce it?

...

The increasingly conservative court has said often of late that it is getting out of the business of finding a right to sue that is not explicitly stated in the law -- what lawyers call an "implied cause of action."

...

Scalia, as he has held since becoming a justice, responded that it is not the job of the court to provide relief.

"I agree with you entirely that it would make sense to provide a cause of action for retaliation, but we don't write statutes," Scalia said. "We read them. And there's nothing in this statute that says that."

Washington Post

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022301915.html?sid=ST2008022400005

---

No cause of action against retaliation?

[bemildred]

1. Where is the statute that say counting the votes in Florida is against the Constitution, asshole? nt

[flashl]

2. Thats what I thought about also. nt

[Javaman]

3. welcome to legalized indentured servitude. No bankruptcy, no legal recourse.

the permanent debt pool to which corps pull the "dedicated employees" from, aka: dead ender citizens with no hope of ever getting back into the black and dying at their desks.

[RC]

4. If corporations are deemed persons, then why are they afforded special protection

under the law for their mistakes, incompetences and criminal activities against being sued by their victims? Civil Rights has a ways to go yet. Equal protection under the law, my ass.

[alfredo]

5. They want to take away all legal and non violent means of settling disputes.