Well, it seems Mr. Fritzl had been charged with rape numerous times, and even convicted and imprisoned for it. His wife surely knew about that?

He terrorized his first 7 children, according to the wife of one of them, the kids got married as soon as they were old enough to escape the situation. I imagine his wife was an obedient wallflower type of lady who just went along with whatever he said and knew when to shut up. Is that reprehensible? Yes. Is it criminally punishable? I don't think so.

And Brightstar, I have no idea how anyone with any imagination and heart could write this: "I do not care if the guy had an arsenal of weaponry that he threatened the women with. If they are not circumspect enough and do not have enough brains to figure out a way out of this heinous sphere of events, then they are JUST AS GUILTY as the beast is."

LOL!

Gitmo can at once:

- be a place for the worst of the worst

- a prison that has released more than half of its detainees without charge.

If only all the officers working the prosecutions would resign, there would be no system. One by one, they are peeling away. Perhaps there is hope?

I don't! When was that? i missed it.

It just seemed like this post was really mean, no redeeming humor, just bitterness and bad feeling.

I don't want to haze anyone, I'm just sayin'...

At first I thought, "omg, they let a dude post on broadsheet! yay!"

But there was something in this post that rubbed me the wrong way, and I'm no mommy-sympathizer. Maybe the last sentence? Some moms and dads abuse their kids in all kinds of ways, no need to throw the whole Mother's Day into the trash heap...

I've heard this "Obama is a secret Muslim" thing emanating from northern NJ for a while. Completely unfounded and stupid, but it's there...

are really tempting me to buy game systems. And a tv to use with them, obvs.

REALLY tempting.

Is that it? Nothing about the fact that the entire issue was omitted by Dahlia Lithwick? Nothing about the fact that Ledbetter's lawyers conceded that they "should have" pursued the additional cause of action?

If you're going to be stickler, you have to start with yourself, doncha think?

I guess I learned something; don't try to simplify things for the non-lawyers, because the more anal-retentive non-lawyers in the Salon readership won't have it.

Are you a lawyer? :)

So, LeCastor, ya got me. Are you happy? Good. Because I'm going to go to sleep happy in the knowledge that Dahlia Lithwick and the Salon staff will all be less than happy that their side keeps losing cases before the Supreme Court.

Maybe on this, but not on Gitmo. We keep winning. Shall we make it 4-0, Salon/Slate, in Boumadiene in June? :)

Look, dude, I can't force you admit you were wrong when you wrote all this:

Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear, by her attorneys' own choice, under a single legal theory; casually referred to in legal shorthand as Title VII of the United States Code. That is a particular law that holds some peculiar benefits for plaintiffs like Lilly Ledbetter, but it wasn't originally aimed at this particular circumstance, and it does carry a shorter statute of limitations for reasons that are to detailed to recount here.

What Lilly Ledbetter failed to do through her attorneys (somebody ought to ask those attorneys this question) is why she didn't sue under the law that was designed for this very purpose, the Equal Pay Act. If she had, and if the facts at trial had justified it, Lilly Ledbetter could have prevailed and gotten compensation. Lilly Ledbetter lost her case because her lawyers failed to use the law that could have served her. Not because of some evil "Vulcans" on the Supreme Court, and not because of any deficiency in the law

To me, the above implies that the EPA was never used, when in fact it was.

It's easiest to just admit you misstated the facts, and be done with it than try to argue incongruent way to technically fit what is patently not what you said into what you said.

Yup.

In McCreary v. ACLU (2005), Scalia “Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.”

How someone could write that in good faith is beyond me. Brings to mind his concurrence in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Stratton (2002): “if our free-speech jurisprudejce is to be determined by the predicted behavior of such crackpots, we are in a sorry state indeed.”

Very simple. Elephant man wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter sued Goodyear, by her attorneys' own choice, under a single legal theory;

Alito wrote:

Ledbetter commenced this action, in which she asserted, among other claims, a Title VII pay discrimination claim and a claim under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), 29 U. S. C. §206(d).

The end.

I first saw in the Dworkin-Mackinnon anti-porn ordinances, and have heard it repeated around the feminist web many times, but I just don't see what the problem is. In my straightward, naive eyes, i don't really see how this is in any significant way related objectification of women.

Help?

Having just taken a law school exam, i'm too tired to get into the civil procedure or whatever, but here's some fun to be had: out of protest for McCain's comments that the way to fix things is to give women more education and training, women are sending their resumes to mccain asking him if he thinks they need more education and training.

or am I misremembering?