In an editorial entitled “Wal-Mart wins, workers lose,” the New York Times once again proves its comedic mettle:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four moderates on the court, dissented from Justice Scalia’s broader analysis and sought a much narrower holding. The minority found that the plaintiffs had cleared the bar for certification with evidence suggesting that “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s company culture” but would have sent the case back to the trial court to consider whether the class action should have gone forward in a different form.
Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters recaps the hilarity:
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: feminist activist. Former General Counsel of the ACLU. Pro-abortion rights crusader. Moderate.
Elena Kagan’s a “moderate” too. Wow.
In this instance though, I think that “moderate” might actually be a slap at Ginsburg and Kagan, because the Court’s vote in favor of Wal-Mart was unanimous.
In the Times’ bio of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they write that she is “a consistent member of the Court’s liberal minority.” But one vote in favor of Wal-Mart and suddenly Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor — who on their worst days can make Noam Chomsky look like a Reaganite — are “moderates.”
Don’t worry, NYT, I’m sure they won’t disappoint you in their next case.