Does one need to ask how McBush voted? The scumbag couldn't possibly care less about workers, especially those who worked for the military. The bastard should be stoned.

I think you can stick a fork in this country, we are done.

Bush/Cheney WILL bomb Iran at or near the time of the Dem convention. Bush will make a big speech about how dangerous Iran is, how they are a few weeks away from having WMD and we need to go to war with them to save Israel and ourselves. McBush and his fellow scumbags, including False News, will get into the Dem's patriotism and surrender to the enemy. General McBush will obviously support the new war, big time. If he wins the election, assuming Cheney allows an election, this country is toast and I already have begun plans to move to Canada. As a Dem, I will be viewed as a terrorist.

Because fairness is just asking too much.

Michael M. @ 3:

I think you can stick a fork in this country, we are done.

Yep, just watching the endgame play out...

It might create more lawsuits? WTF? Lawsuits are the instruments and weapons for those who feel a law has been broken and they are the victims. As long as we have laws and they are broken we will have lawsuits. That's the fu*king way it's supposed to work.

So they are willing to sacrifice the rights of women in order to protect business. I hope every man and woman remembers the name of every bastard who voted against this with the exception of Reid who had to do what he did to keep this thing alive. As far as I'm concerned, we have a brand new shit list to work with today.

Anyone who votes for McCain is voting against women's rights. It's that plain and and that simple. And yeah, I am bitter.

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John Mcrone (R-Flipfop) didn't vote but is on record opposing the bill...

I'm reading John Grisham's latest - about corporate interests using their vast wealth to stack Supreme Courts. It would be a really good book, except for the depressing feeling that it's probably a very realistic scenario. The SCOTUS has been going that way ever since Reagan.

I was jus bing facetious, pat...

In the Collins vs Tom Allen race, I'm voting for Allen - BUT - in fairness to Collins she has been quite consistent in the pursuit of equal rights for women especially in the business world.

Let's not stoop to the level of the Republican slime machine by painting everyone with the same brush as a wretch like Mitch McConnell just because they share the odious (R). FWIW - there are more than enough reasons to vote for Allen and against Collins.

My Senator (Kay Bailey-Hutchinson) sent me the following email (below with my response email as well) and then proceeded to vote NO on cloture. She sent me this email 2 days ago and now she is filibustering the the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The gall this woman has.

Dear Senator,

You sent me the below email and then proceeded to Vote NO on cloture for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. You are Fillibustering the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. Did you lie to me? Response requested.

XXX

From your email to me dated 4-22-2008: Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding wage discrimination in the workplace. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On May 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. which set a powerful precedent concerning discrimination in the workplace. The Court ruled in favor of Goodyear by a 5 to 4 margin, citing that Ms. Ledbetter had not filed the lawsuit within the required time frame of 180 days following the first instance of wage discrimination. By failing to do so, the Court found Ms. Ledbetter was not eligible to file suit based on gender or race discrimination.

Two bills regarding this issue have recently been introduced in Congress that would broaden the definition of unlawful employment discrimination. H.R. 2831 was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 22, 2007, by Representative George Miller (D-CA), and S. 1843 was introduced in the Senate on July 20, 2007, by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Echoing Ms. Ledbetter’s argument before the Court, these bills provide that if wage discrimination has occurred, it continues every time the affected employee receives a paycheck. As such, passage of these bills would effectively nullify the Supreme Court decision.

I believe all forms of discrimination are wrong and therefore support strong enforcement of our nation’s existing anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and other federal laws aimed at preventing discrimination and expanding opportunities for all Americans. While both bills have yet to come before the full Senate, please be assured that, if either do, I will take your views into consideration.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

EliteLemming @ 14:

pissed off patricia @ 11:

It might create more lawsuits? WTF? Lawsuits are the instruments and weapons for those who feel a law has been broken and they are the victims. As long as we have laws and they are broken we will have lawsuits. That's the fu*king way it's supposed to work.

So they are willing to sacrifice the rights of women in order to protect business. I hope every man and woman remembers the name of every bastard who voted against this with the exception of Reid who had to do what he did to keep this thing alive. As far as I'm concerned, we have a brand new shit list to work with today.

Anyone who votes for McCain is voting against women's rights. It's that plain and and that simple. And yeah, I am bitter.

You okay babe? *rubbing your shoulders* Did you get the dishes done hon?

As a matter of fact I just finished doing the dishes and I'm feeling great. Thanks for asking both questions.

Yes, Republicans are filibustering it. Sen KBH's email to me said she supported this (legislation to correct Ledbetter decision). She said she would give Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act fair consideration if it came to the floor for an up or down vote. Then 2 days later she filibusters the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to prevent it from getting an up or down floor vote.

How do you even find out what other people are making to begin with? It's considered ridiculously rude to ask in almost any circle I'm aware of. Most larger jobs direct deposit and then mail the pay stub, so you're incredibly unlikely to see someone else's even by sheer accident. Unless the person just blabs it out on accident, you're essentially screwed unless you want to be completely paranoid about it all of the time to make sure you're being treated fairly.

Stupid.

For all those Hillary voters who say if Obama wins they will vote for McCrazy, I hope they like more of this , because that is what you are going to get. McCrazy would veto any bill that give women a fair shake.

Who needs equal pay. Support flag burning amendment!!

Whoaaa!!

USA! USA! USA!

diamondmc @ 29:

For all those Hillary voters who say if Obama wins they will vote for McCrazy, I hope they like more of this , because that is what you are going to get. McCrazy would veto any bill that give women a fair shake.

It's highly doubtful that Clinton would take a woman's side over a corporation's. When employers are sued for gender discrimination in Arkansas, the employers hire The Rose Law Firm.

Condi Rice is polishing up her, "aluminum pipes" and "yellow-cake uranium" speech at this very moment.

This time it won't be Osama's fault, they'll blame American Democrats, starting with Hillary and Obama.

How much more obvious do Republicans have to make their contempt for pretty much everyone before people will stop voting for them?

If you want to keep the 180-day deadline, not from when the employee discovers the inequality but from when it actually starts, fine. New law: every place of employment has to post what every employee makes, including salaries and all bonuses/benefits.

I've worked for my current employer for ten years. I have absolutely no idea how much any of my co-workers make. That information is considered highly confidential, as I'm sure it is at many companies. The only way that any anti-discriminatory laws ever have a hope of functioning is if employees have some way of determining whether or not they are being discriminated against. But of course keeping us in the dark is the agenda of the repugs. "Looky, we have these nice pretty anti-discrimination laws. And we've formulated them so they're of no use whatsoever."

#33: The proof is in the pudding. Clinton VOTED for women over corporations (as did Obama). And she delivered a very good, short speech on the Senate floor as to why. Looking back at the Rose Law Firm (which did much more than just business law) is irrelevant. One of Clinton's strong points with women is that she has stood for them and with them consistently.

I support this law, and think it corrects a serious problem, but don't know if it's more important than issues like lapel pins and preacher comments. It should also be noted that lieberman voted right this time

If we had real leadership, they'd be making the Republicans actually work for, and earn, these filibusters.

You have to admit - Republics are consistent - they hate women, minorities, immigrants, public school children (except for photo-ops) - basically anyone who is not a rich, white male with an overinflated ego.

I love how the Republicans can turn the oppressor into the oppressed and vice versa. Now women are to blame because if this law passes, then they'll have more leeway to file lawsuits if they receive less than equal pay for equal work. Republicans are MASTERS at blaming the oppressed for "playing the victim game," a game they are masters at playing. Total Hypocrites.

Vote the Bums Out!

Yet despite this, poor conservatives will still vote for Republicans because they hate gays and promise to kill more Arab Muslims.

Much of the support for the so-called "equal pay bill" is based on a factual misunderstanding about the deadline that applies to pay discrimination claims -- most of which can still be brought for much longer than 180 days after discrimination happens.

In the court ruling that the bill seeks to overturn, the Supreme Court properly applied the deadline explicitly mandated by the law the plaintiff was suing under -- Title VII -- and it did not bar most pay discrimination suits from being brought after 180 days, since those lawsuits can be brought under other laws specifically intended to handle pay discrimination cases, like the Equal Pay Act, which have much longer deadlines.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007), the Supreme Court enforced the explicit 180-day deadline for bringing discrimination claims under Title VII, ruling that Lilly Ledbetter’s pay discrimination suit under Title VII was untimely because she brought it long after 180 days had elapsed. But the court specifically noted in a footnote that the plaintiff had (for unknown reasons) dropped her claim under the Equal Pay Act — which has a longer deadline (3 years) for suing. Court reporters ignored the footnote and the very existence of the Equal Pay Act and thus created the false impression that the Supreme Court’s enforcing the Title VII deadline as written would leave women without any redress for sex-based pay discrimination after 180 days had passed.

It makes sense that the two laws have different deadlines, because one deals with pay discrimination, which often takes a long time to learn about (your co-workers’ pay isn’t usually public knowledge, so it’s hard to know whether your male colleagues are being paid more than you are for the same job), while the other deals primarily with things like hiring and firing, which you learn about immediately.

Moreover, the bill the Senate is considering doesn't just change the deadline the Supreme Court set for Title VII. Even supporters of the bill like the Washington Post complain about one bug in the bill, which the Post seeks to have amended out of the bill before it is passed: the fact that it would allow “someone other than the employee“ to sue the employer under the expanded deadline. But that flaw isn’t a bug, it’s an intended feature of the bill, indeed, one of the cynical reasons the bill was introduced.

Many laws with long deadlines for suing, like 42 U.S.C. 1981 (which permits suits over race discrimination for up to four years after it occurred, regardless of whether the discrimination involves pay, hiring, or firing), only permit the affected employee — not bureaucrats like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — to sue over alleged discrimination, preventing one borderline stale claim of discrimination by a single former employee from being used by the EEOC to create a vast class action or demand for wide-ranging and intrusive injunctive relief against an employer.

By contrast, Title VII already gives the EEOC broad leeway to butt in and sue in federal court based on allegations that an employer discriminated against an employee, even if the employee herself has agreed to forego a lawsuit in favor of other means, like arbitration. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would go far beyond even that by allowing any “affected” person, not just the employee or the EEOC, the ability to sue under Title VII.

If the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passes, the EEOC’s ability to bring such suits under Title VII, and demand wide-ranging injunctive “relief” (or extract controversial settlements containing gender-based or race-based preferences) will be dramatically expanded. And a gaggle of additional parties claiming to be “affected” will be able to bring lawsuits of their own.

#55-Thank you for your eloquence. Now perhaps you could explain McCain's comment about women needing more training and education . WTF?

Every woman in this country who doesn't consider the Republican blockage of this bill a personal attack on their gender is deaf,dunb, and blind

The very same people fight against H1B visas like hell, saying it's a way to import cheap labor into the country, undercutting ordinary americans. Talk about conflicting messages.