hey that super hot
cow gal
was tower trash
thru and thru .....
=============================================
WASH POST:
"With yesterday's retirement
of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
, business lost
one of its most important allies.
Appellate lawyers and former clerks
uniformly described O'Connor
as sympathetic to the problems of business,
voting to curb what she viewed
as excessive financial awards to plaintiffs
in the form of punitive damages
and forcing prosecutors
to prove that companies intended
to break the law
to win criminal convictions.
She frequently
sided with businesses to ensure
that the federal government,
rather than a hodgepodge of states,
would be their primary regulator.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
are ideologically conservative
but take a strict view of the Constitution,
which they say does not afford protection
against enormous legal awards by juries.
O'Connor's drive
to limit what she called excessive
damage judgments for plaintiffs,
begun with a lone dissent
in a 1991 case,
made her a favorite
of chief executives.
If anyone up there could have been tagged
pro-business, O'Connor would have been the one
The retiring justice cited arguments
from businesses and the military
in writing a major opinion
upholding the legality
of affirmative action.
O'Connor's rulings limited the kinds of illnesses
to trigger the Americans with Disabilities Act
AND That the federal government,
not the states, regulate foreign commerce.
O'Connor voted to limit industry liability,
in a 2000 case where the court ruled, 5 to 4,
that American Honda Motor Co.
should not be on the hook
for failing to install air bags
in a car manufactured
at a time when air bags
were not required.
About 40 percent of the cases
from the past two Supreme Court terms
had direct consequences for business,
according to an informal Chamber of Commerce study.
10 business cases ARE on the court's docket
for the next term,
including whether a joint venture
between Texaco Inc. and Shell Oil Co.
violated antitrust laws in its pricing decisions.
IBP Inc. v. Alvarez
asks if employers must pay workers
for time they spend putting on
and taking off work uniforms
and protective equipment.
Analysts say the White House
could take the unusual step
of naming a justice
with a background in business affairs"
Posted by pinky at July 3, 2005 03:26 AM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)