Hello, Wtuvell, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's off-topic and a tangent. WP already has a more specific article on McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting, which only took me about one minute to find. That would be the best location for a detailed discussion of how the general summary judgment framework went haywire in the employment context after McDonnell Douglas.
Learn how to use Google to execute focused site-specific searches with the site: operator, which is often more powerful than any particular web site's own search feature. Search Google for the search string "site operator" for articles on that subject. It's had that powerful feature for over a decade. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a blog. The sources cited go to how American anti-discrimination law is broken, not how summary judgment law is broken. Your attempt to use them to support a strained inference in favor of the latter assertion is original research in violation of WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your true motive to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is revealed by this statement: "For, what the judges are doing is violating S.J. IN ORDER TO break empl disc law." Which again, as I already noted, is appropriate for the article on McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting. It is inappropriate for a discussion of summary judgment law in general, which is working just fine in nearly every other area of civil litigation.
Again, you have cited no source for the proposition that summary judgment law as a whole is broken. You are trying to extrapolate a broader inference from sources specific to employment discrimination law but you have no source that stands for that much broader proposition. That's original research. That's a violation of WP:NOR. Go refresh your memory on the section in WP:NOR about "Synthesis of published material."
I should also note that you're way out of your depth. I immediately thought of one chapter in one very well-known practice treatise that would support a colorable counterargument in support of your position -- though in my opinion, not ultimately persuasive -- because that chapter does briefly digress into a discussion of McDonnell Douglas to warn lawyers that employment discrimination law is the weird outlier in the middle of a lengthy general discussion of summary judgment burden shifting. The fact that you haven't cited that treatise yet speaks for itself. And in any event, the best counterargument that chapter would stand for is that the summary judgment article merely needs a sentence or two warning that the standard process doesn't apply in employment discrimination law, along with a link to the article on McDonnell Douglas burden shifting.--Coolcaesar (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
