We have an interesting democracy.  Sometimes we have unimpressive and weak leaders in the Executive.  Many times we have embarrassing infighting in the Legislature along with the antiquated threat of filibuster in the Senate.  But, recent events leading up to replacing a retiring Justice of the Supreme Court, show the importance of how people view the most likely candidate who will be his replacement.  But that is not the reason for this essay which is prompted by an editorial on Age Discrimination in today's New York Times.

I often agree more than disagree with the editorial wisdom on its pages that I read daily.  I find that some of the issues taken up by the editors are non-starters with me.  But, this one, today, is about Age Discrimination and it has been called a "dreadful ruling". On this, I agree.

It may be because it has the imprint of the hand of Justice Clarence Thomas who led the 5 to 4 decision.  His cohorts are the usual suspects, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito - Conservatives always.  The fifth Justice who often joins them is Anthony Kennedy.  And, thereby hangs the decision which some will wonder why so much fuss is being made about it. This decision by the majority of the Justices REWROTE the rules for litigating age-discrimination cases in favor of employers, which make it harder for those with legitimate claims of age discrimination to prevail in court.  This last sentence is a quote from the editorial.

Conservative opinion, unfortunately, is usually on the side of established power.  Older workers have no power despite their being invaluable because of their knowledge and irreplaceable experience.  Management makes its decisions which most times favor the profitability of firms and decide that the old folks have to be turned out.  This is wrong on many counts and especially so because workers who have spent their lives for their companies find that those companies are not theirs and for all their wisdom and experience, they no longer are needed.  The Supreme Court, led by Clarence Thomas, narrowly decided against them.

The burden of proof has been shifted by this decision - proving that age was the deciding factor "an ultrahigh hurdle."  Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the decision engages in unnecessary lawmaking.  This has been a criticism of the Court by those on all sides of the issues brought before it. The Supreme Court is not the Legislature.

Age Discrimination stinks.  I think so and it may be because I have gotten old.