Letters

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Jun 9, 2007

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?

Ginsburg's dissent followed letter of the law

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires persons who wish to file suit for sexual discrimination in the workplace to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." Contrary to The Gazette's Our View, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent is not an example of "judicial activism" ("Justices get it right in pay-bias case," June 1). Rather, the majority of the Supreme Court, which interpreted "unlawful employment practice" in a manner which is entirely inconsistent with Congress' intent, is guilty of judicial activism.

According to the majority, the only "unlawful employment practice" that occurred in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber was the first one, which occurred in 1979 and which Lilly Ledbetter did not even perceive as being discriminatory at the time. In fact, Goodyear continued to discriminate against Ledbetter for the next 20 years, as the jury found in the case. Goodyear did so subtly, as employers so often do, in order to keep her in the dark and unaware of how she was being shafted.

Congress never intended that requiring an EEOC complaint within 180 days of the "unlawful employment practice" would mean that employers would get a free ride to discriminate for 20 or more years if the victim did not file her complaint within 180 days of the initial discriminatory action.

The court's majority simply re-wrote the phrase "unlawful employment practice" to mean "the first act of unlawful employment practice." How is that not judicial activism? Congress should immediately right this wrong, and I hope it extends the statute of limitations for 50 years so employers such as Goodyear are forced to constantly look over their shoulders for the ghosts of employees past who were previously cheated.

Joe Bennett

Colorado Springs

ALL SHOOKS UP

Proposed condos would lower property values

Even the most fervent libertarian believes that a person's right to stretch his arms ends at my nose. That's why we have zoning laws, so my neighbor's actions won't negatively impact my property value. If my neighbor decides he wants to become a pig farmer, he's going to have to move someplace where the zoning laws allow that to happen.

While Eddie Bishop doesn't want a pig farm, the density of the condominiums that he's proposing to build will be almost as odious to his neighbors ("All Shooks up," Our View, June 4).

The proposed condos will put more than 20 units within 40 feet of the nearest neighbor's bedroom window. During the summer, when we keep our windows open, even one couple sitting on their balcony having a quiet conversation until midnight will disturb others.

Obviously, if the current zoning is changed to allow this proposed development, then the value of the property belonging to people who already live in the neighborhood will drastically decline.

There are many other reasons why the neighborhood is almost unanimous in opposing the development in its current incarnation.

Rick Villa

Colorado Springs

SEEING CLEARLY

It's no trouble to separate troops from the mission

As the wife of a retired soldier who served in Afghanistan in 2002, I would like to clarify my position of supporting the troops, but not the war in Iraq. That seems to be a confusing principle for many people.

Only a few people know for sure why this war was started. The only thing we can be sure of is that it wasn't because Iraq had nuclear weapons. I believe President Bush and his administration invaded Iraq so that they could secure a central power position in the Middle East and have access to Iraqi oil supplies. That is imperialism. Oil and power do not meet the criteria of an acceptable reason to start a war; that is not a good enough reason to sacrifice soldiers' lives.

Soldiers fight because they are dedicated to serving this country and its people. Their motives are noble and admirable. They should be asked to sacrifice life, limb and mind only for an honorable cause. They should not be called to that duty carelessly, frivolously or hastily. Their lives are sacred and should be risked only with the greatest care and consideration. That care was not taken in preparation for this war. The troops were understaffed, underequipped and often underprepared for the conditions they were being sent into. They have been poorly served upon their return home.

If sacrificing soldiers' lives for carelessly conceived reasons is not illegal, it is certainly highly immoral. It should be totally unacceptable to their fellow citizens. It certainly is to me.

Barb Felton

Guffey