The L.A. Times misses the boat when it acts as if biology — and not known judicial philosophy as expressed in earlier cases — were the factor that best explains Justices’ alignments in cases like Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Eugene Volokh]
The L.A. Times misses the boat when it acts as if biology — and not known judicial philosophy as expressed in earlier cases — were the factor that best explains Justices’ alignments in cases like Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Eugene Volokh]
4 Comments
its always the man’s fault. never mind judicial philosophy.
The LA Times think that a person’s gender helps determine the outcome of their legal decisions? And you think their judicial philosophy is the primary determiner of where they will fall in decisions?
No… wait. Now that I think about it a bit more I’m actually going with their decisions help you determine their judicial philosophy. Or maybe their gender helps the LA times sell papers. Um. Hrm.
OK, the way I see it now, their judicial philosophy JUST MIGHT HELP DETERMINE THEIR GENDER!
“When all you’ve got is a hammer…”
I was depressed by the ignorance of Justice Ginsberg and the other two women on the court in their Wal-Mart descent. Then a lady reporter just stated, correctly so, that the Blagojevich conviction was unfounded and that he suffered a witch trial. I thank her for showing that not all women are idiots.