You're correct that the Court should base its statutory interpretations on what the law says rather than on what the Court wants the law to say. But in this instance, as in so many others, the words of the statute are ambiguous. The question is whether Congress intended to limit civil rights plaintiffs to 180 days from the time the discrimination began or 180 days from any point during its duration. By interpreting it narrowly to be 180 days from the start of a discriminatory practice, the Court made it far more difficult for plaintiffs to bring suits. You're right that Congress can pass a new law clarifying or changing the old one. But passing a new law is difficult in the best of circumstances.

It is so great that you take the time to respond to comments. Thanks! You have a good point, however in a perfect world we would hold our congress members more accountable to write less ambiguous laws, and fix them when there is an unanticipated effect. But I know the world isn't perfect.

Can you discuss your thoughts on the deficit and national debt in a future blog? In particular future effects and possible solutions.