It all begins with the fact that we are a system of separated powers composed of four distinct institutions connected to the population in unique ways (at least that was the original intent).
In the recent Ledbetter case the Supreme Court, composed of individuals with life terms selected by presidents and confirmed by Senates dating back to mid 1970s, adopted a narrow definition of discrimination that disallowed a law suit alleging gender discrimination in pay.
They are free from the direct control of the electorate, but are bound by the laws they interpret. In her dissent Ginsburg stated that "the ball is in Congress' court" and they can change the law, which the Democratic majority seems likely to do. In all likelihood this law will be vetoed by the president since the business community is justifiably concerned that an expanded definition of discrimination would lead to more law suits. Democrats just barely control both chambers of Congress, so unless they get a good handful of Republican votes, they will be unable to override the veto. This will be an interesting test of the ability of Republicans to stay cohesive. Individual members will have to weigh the attitudes of their constituents--including the potential loss of female votes--against the preferences and strength of their party.
If this plays out, then this could easily become a election issue in 2008 with Republicans arguing that civil rights remedies for gender discrimination must be limited and Democrats arguing the opposite. This will certainly not be the only issue that voters will have to consider, but it will surely be in the mix.
Confused? Then you're paying attention.
