Republican Senators Block Pay Discrimination Measure

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure intended to overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination suits in a politically charged vote certain to be replayed in the presidential and Congressional campaigns.

By a vote of 56 to 42, the Senate fell four votes short of the 60 required to begin consideration of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost a case against the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company when the court found she not did file her complaint in time. Ms. Ledbetter had been paid as much as 40 percent less than her male counterparts doing the same job, according to her allies.

The political elements of the debate were unmistakable. Unable to reach an agreement with Republicans, Democrats did not convene the Senate until 5 p.m. so their two presidential candidates — Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — could return from the campaign trail. Both spoke in favor of the legislation.

The campaign arm of Senate Democrats quickly issued news releases attacking Republicans up for re-election who opposed the procedural vote. And Democrats warned Republicans that they would hear from voters on an issue of major import to women as they accused Republicans of missing an opportunity to help victims of pay discrimination pursue justice in court.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washington/24cong.html?ref=us

[Ian David]

1. Sixty is the new fifty! Heckuva Job, Harry! n/t

[dubeskin]

2. That's too bad...

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure intended to overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination suits in a politically charged vote certain to be replayed in the presidential and Congressional campaigns.

But now I'm showing my constitutional ignorance. I was under the impression that pretty much the Supreme Court had final say on all laws, and that the legislative body cannot overturn their decisions. I thought the most that could happen was that Congress revise the law and/or pass a new one with better conditions that the Court may approve of. Am I wrong here?

[Solon]

4. The Supreme Court Basically said, in that decision, that Congress should fix it...

This is similar to measures that happened in some states over Marriage Equality, such as Massachusetts, where the Court there said: "You didn't define Marriage, define it, one way or the other."

Since there are limitations on lawsuits, when they can be filed, etc. as a GENERAL rule, there was very little language in the law to allow exceptions for different types of lawsuits, such as discrimination lawsuits. It was undefined, and the SCOTUS basically told Congress to define it.

ON EDIT: The key is that this is a judgment based on current law, not the Constitution itself, and therefore it can be "corrected" by Congress if necessary.

[dubeskin]

5. I see, thanks.

I didn't quite get the language here. But now I understand that in essence they weren't overturning the decision, just redefining the requirements, in a way.

[Faygo Kid]

3. This would only have RESTORED the law as it was, the "paycheck rule."

Which says that the wrongdoing commences with each new violation, i.e., when the payment is made in violation of the law.

The Bush Supreme Court said the statute tolls from the time of the first offense. In other words, if you were discriminated against 25 years ago, you have only from the time of that first discriminatory pay period to file a claim. Normally, that's about 18 months or less. Who the HELL would discover something like that in that period of time??? Certainly not Lilly Ledbetter.

The bottom line is that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its wildest dreams never hoped to get rid of the paycheck rule. This wasn't even on the radar.

But Bush's Supreme Court invented this new law, and the GOP is happy to comply. And it says a great deal about the kind of person John McCain is, because (listen closely now) THIS IS A RADICAL AND UNPRECEDENTED DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED LAW, AND MCCAIN FAVORS SUCH A BREAK FROM PRECEDENT.

Thank you. Anybody at DU who had any doubts that McCain would not do his corporate bidders' handling can now rest easy. This is radical stuff, and McCain is on board.