Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[C1ay]

FWIW, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074 the court found,

 

Held: Because the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge, Ledbetter’s claim is untimely.Pp. 4–24.

(a)

An individual wishing to bring a Title VII lawsuit must first filean EEOC charge within, as relevant here, 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1).

 

Further, the Fair Pay Act as passed by the House, and currently on the calendar in the Senate, does not address the 180 limit in 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) so McCain's claim that it is a "trial lawyer's dream" is likely correct. I expect the Senate will address this and return a revised bill to the House.

[REASON]

So, you are actually making an assumption that you haven't researched? That's spin!

 

From this you cannot read anything into McCain's views on the legislation as written.

 

Other than what he was quoted saying about it, you are correct.

 

I will redact my statement and present it another way.

 

Legislation known as the Fair Pay Act was proposed in congress to correct a flaw in the law that allowed businesses to discriminate against women regarding pay for equal work. While the Act passed in the House of Representitives, it stalled in the Senate. After siding with a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a lower court that ruled in favor of Lilly Ledbetter, who was denied equal pay for 20 years because she is a woman, Sen. John McCain referred to the new legislation as "a trial lawyers' dream," and was one of two Senators that did not vote on it. I am unaware of his problems, if any, with the bill.

 

Senator Obama supported the Fair Pay Act, and suggested that the Ledbetter case is an example of "how an out-of-touch judiciary can erode important civil rights and legal protections, like those that make pay discrimination illegal," according to an article from Newsday.com.

 

I dont' know, you be the judge.

[pgrmdave]

Having listened to an NPR segment about this issue, one of the problems, and the reason McCain was wary of the bill, was that there was no statute of limitations, which opens up the possibility for a lawsuit to be brought against a company when the records may not exist, and the people who hired and paid the person may not work there. This could bog down the justice system and hurt businesses, which hurts their employees. The bill did include a provision that limited damages to a maximum of two years.

 

The judiciary did determine that the statute of limitations had passed, and they also admonished the legislature for passing such a poor bill, and suggested that the problem required a legislative remedy, not a judicial remedy (which I tend to agree with).

 

Here's the radio show - from Brian Lehrer's 30 issues in 30 days series on WNYC:

 

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/10/20/segments/112978

[C1ay]

Legislation known as the Fair Pay Act was proposed in congress to correct a flaw in the law that allowed businesses to discriminate against women regarding pay for equal work. While the Act passed in the House of Representitives, it stalled in the Senate. After siding with a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a lower court that ruled in favor of Lilly Ledbetter, who was denied equal pay for 20 years because she is a woman, Sen. John McCain referred to the new legislation as "a trial lawyers' dream," and was one of two Senators that did not vote on it. I am unaware of his problems, if any, with the bill.

 

The Fair Pay Act states:

 

AN ACT

 

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

 

It says nothing about correcting any flaw in the law that allows businesses to discriminate against women and the court made no such claim that law allowed it. The court simply ruled that a woman whom had been discriminated against had not filed her claim in the timely manner required in 42 USC 21. As written the Act does not address this time limit either. McCain simply remarked that he agreed with the court's ruling and a reading of the applicable law supports their ruling. I have provided links to the ruling and the Fair Pay Act itself should you care to actually read them and point out where the court erred.

 

Senator Obama supported the Fair Pay Act, and suggested that the Ledbetter case is an example of "how an out-of-touch judiciary can erode important civil rights and legal protections, like those that make pay discrimination illegal," according to an article from Newsday.com.

 

Senator Obama simply voted in invoke cloture on the bill which is a measure to bring the bill to a vote without debating it. Since the bill does not address the time limit that affected Ms. Ledbetter it would seem he should have favored debate on the bill to correct anything it was missing instead of just voting that it should be voted on as is. It is apparent from Obama's remark that he feels the court should not judge based on the rule of law but should instead have a flexible interpretation of the law that changes with time. He appparently has a poor understanding of what the role of the judiciary is.

[REASON]

FWIW, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074 the court found,

 

Further, the Fair Pay Act as passed by the House, and currently on the calendar in the Senate, does not address the 180 limit in 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) so McCain's claim that it is a "trial lawyer's dream" is likely correct. I expect the Senate will address this and return a revised bill to the House.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 does address the 180 day limit. That is it's intent.

 

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the `Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007'.

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

 

Congress finds the following:

 

(1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074 (May 29, 2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have been bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of Congress.

 

(2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.

 

(3) With regard to any charges of discrimination under any law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an aggrieved person's right to introduce evidence of unlawful employment practices that have occurred outside the time for filing a charge of discrimination.

 

(4) This Act is not intended to change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.

 

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.

 

Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

`(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.

 

`(:( In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977a of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.'.

 

If John McCain supports legislation that intends to eliminate discriminatory compensation paractices, and feels this bill does not adequately do so, it would be easy for him to clarify the impression that is left by the comments he made about it, and the fact that he avoided the issue by not voting.

 

It should be noted that the votes in the house were split along party lines, and I would not be surprised if the fact that he intended on running for president is why he abstained from this controversial and potentially partisan vote in the Senate.

[C1ay]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 does address the 180 day limit. That is it's intent.

 

You should note that the sections of the Act that you bolded are the "findings" of Congress, not the actions of the legislation which is listed later in the legislation. I have read the entirety of the Act and it does not address the requirement to file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the discrimination before a private lawsuit can be filed. The only changes to law that it makes applicable to Ms. Ledbetter are:

 

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.

 

Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

`(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.

 

`(:( In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977a of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.'.

 

Had the law read this at the time of Ms. Ledbetter's filing it would have allowed her to see up to 2 years of wages prior to the filing date of her letter as opposed to the 180 days her claim was effectively limited to. It would not have changed the 180 day filing requirement though.

[REASON]

You should note that the sections of the Act that you bolded are the "findings" of Congress, not the actions of the legislation which is listed later in the legislation. I have read the entirety of the Act and it does not address the requirement to file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the discrimination before a private lawsuit can be filed. The only changes to law that it makes applicable to Ms. Ledbetter are:

 

Had the law read this at the time of Ms. Ledbetter's filing it would have allowed her to see up to 2 years of wages prior to the filing date of her letter as opposed to the 180 days her claim was effectively limited to. It would not have changed the 180 day filing requirement though.

 

I see your points with regard to this bill, C1ay, and I have to admit that it is frustrating that the findings could be stated so clearly, yet the language intended to rectify the situation seems to do no such thing, unless I'm missing something. What's the point then, right?

 

So I should leave myself open to the idea that John McCain and the rest of the Republicans really are concerned about what happened to Ms. Ledbetter, and I imagine others like her, and are really just wanting a bill that more clearly addresses the problem.

 

Hmm. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[C1ay]

I see your points with regard to this bill, C1ay, and I have to admit that it is frustrating that the findings could be stated so clearly, yet the language intended to rectify the situation seems to do no such thing, unless I'm missing something. What's the point then, right?

 

So I should leave myself open to the idea that John McCain and the rest of the Republicans really are concerned about what happened to Ms. Ledbetter, and I imagine others like her, and are really just wanting a bill that more clearly addresses the problem.

 

Hmm. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

I would make no assumption about the intent of the Republicans on this bill. All we know is that they voted that the bill should not come to the floor "as is" and that Obama voted that it should. IMO, the bill needs more work but do not take that as an endorsement for the Republicans or John McCain. My vote is still "none of the above". It is also my opinion that all of Congress should be sent home and restocked with new faces.

[REASON]

It is also my opinion that all of Congress should be sent home and restocked with new faces.

 

I have argued as much before and would definitely join you in that endeavor. :)

 

Unfortunately, those that are wise enough to make government work the way it should and as intended, are also wise enough to avoid the whole scene.

 

I my opinion, Obama is the closest choice in this regard.

 

Time will tell, but I'm really not going to get my hopes up too much. Always the skeptic I guess.

[Moontanman]

I think who ever gets the job is pretty much screwed, no matter what they do things are going to get worse before they get better and who ever is in office will get the blame but will not be able to share any credit when things finally do turn around :)

[Thunderbird]

Todd Palmer and Rob Pringle: In Case You Weren't Scared Enough: Palin on "Fruit Fly Research"

[questor]

You're afraid of fruit flies? What does the phrase ''we're going to spread the wealth around'' mean to you? Or '' you have a patriotic duty to pay more taxes'' ?

[freeztar]

You're afraid of fruit flies? What does the phrase ''we're going to spread the wealth around'' mean to you? Or '' you have a patriotic duty to pay more taxes'' ?

 

Besides those being separate issues, I think more to the point is that this is a science forum. As such, most people here care deeply about science. Did you read Tbird's link? It does a pretty good job of explaining why the "fruit fly comment" is pertinent to the scientific community.

 

I'm not scared of fruit flies, I embrace them! ;)

[REASON]

What does the phrase ''we're going to spread the wealth around'' mean to you?

 

It means we are no longer going to subscribe to policies intended to concentrate wealth at the top of the economic spectrum.

 

 

Or '' you have a patriotic duty to pay more taxes'' ?

 

This is a misquote. Biden didn't say "more" as a part of that statement.

 

It is, in fact, our patriotic duty to pay taxes. Hopefully, our tax dollars will not be wasted.

 

You succumb so easily to buzzwords and talking points, questor. It is obviously people like you that the Republican spin machine is directing it's campaign of disinformation. (Was that you I heard yelling out at that Palin rally?) But a majority of the American population is ready to move past these simplistic, slimy tactics. And it's about time.

[questor]

Reason..

It means we are no longer going to subscribe to policies intended to concentrate wealth at the top of the economic spectrum.

Does this mean we are going to take more from the big earners to give to the non-earners? Will you be one that is taken from? If so, how will you feel about it? Do the non-earners have to do anything to earn their confiscated money?

[Thunderbird]

What the article shows is Pallin’s total lack of understanding of basic science. Any high schooler knows that fruit fly research is integral in understanding how genetic traits are past on . This includes faulty genes that could be associated with children born with congenital defects such as Downs Syndrome or Autism etc. She touts herself as Pro-life Pro-special needs children advocate and in the same speech uses of all things, fruit fly research as an example of wasteful spending . It is not surprising however the same people that support her never got the irony of the article. ...

[InfiniteNow]

What does the phrase ''we're going to spread the wealth around'' mean to you?

 

Does this mean we are going to take more from the big earners to give to the non-earners? Will you be one that is taken from? If so, how will you feel about it? Do the non-earners have to do anything to earn their confiscated money?

 

 

Conservative commentator and right winger George Will on This Week yesterday said that:

 

95% of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point, we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American peoples billions of dollars, but they don't notice it, it's in such small increments, but the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now, we have socialism for the stong. That is, the well represented and the organized in Washington, like sugar growers, but it's socialism nonetheless, and it's not new.

 

Clip below:

ABC News - THIS WEEK: Round Table

 

 

 

 

"Those that answer a question with a question don't have much to say."

~Questor