Friday, January 16, 2009

Take this job and shove it-Update

Bump & update: The Senate voted 72-23 Thursday afternoon to proceed to the bill. This is a good thing. Be proud, Democrats and Progressives.

Also, to show the awfulness of Alito:
President-elect Barack Obama paid a visit Wednesday to the Supreme Court and chatted in front of a fireplace with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a fellow Harvard law graduate whose confirmation he opposed three years ago.

. . . Wednesday's meeting was described as a relaxed, get-acquainted session. It included Roberts, seven associate justices and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

The absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was at the court Wednesday morning for arguments in two cases, was a mystery. He has, however, voiced lingering anger over Senate Democrats, including Obama and Biden, who voted against his confirmation three years ago. When walking on Capitol Hill, Alito has said, he crosses to the far side of the street whenever he nears the Senate Office Building.

Great. We have a fucking petulant adolescent on the Supreme Court. Judicial temperament my ass. This prick has the temperament of a shunned Heather, still willing to lash out at classmates who called her geeky. Reminds me of the slut-monkeys in Carrie who trashed and humiliated her. Difference here is Alito deserved to be trashed and humiliated.

While I don't believe Obama has Carrie-like powers, still, I hope he realizes that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia are self-important Right-wing ideologues, who have no, none, never not any chance of being rehabilitated.

They are broken men.

(Take This Job and Shove It-Johnny Paycheck)

Remember the name Lilly Ledbetter? She's the woman the Supreme Court royally screwed in 2007, when Injustice Sam Alito ruled that it was completely OK for an employer to illegally discriminate against an employee, as long as the employer keeps the discrimination secret for 180 days:
Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that employers are protected from lawsuits over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more.

This was a case of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. The plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, characterized her situation as one where "disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period." In rejecting Ledbetter's appeal, the Supreme Court said that "she could have, and should have, sued" when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period.

She might have sued except that she DIDN'T FREAKING KNOW! So as long as the employer keeps a successful secret, the employee is screwed. Republican values at work again. Of course, Ms. Ledbetter, being a woman, probably shouldn't have even been working at all.

Thankfully, Sen Pat Leahy (D-VT) has started a movement to fix this awful problem, and the details are at the Equal Pay for Equal Work website:
American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. In the year 2009, that's downright shameful.

That's why I am joining several of my colleagues in the Senate to introduce the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009, to protect women from discrimination in the workplace. But this common-sense legislation faces considerable opposition from some of my colleagues -- and a likely filibuster attempt -- so I urgently need your help to ensure it passes when it comes before the Senate on Thursday.

Please stand up for the principle of "equal pay for equal work" by forwarding this message to your Senators, urging them to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009!

Thank you for taking action.

Indeed. Please click through and use the tools there; you can send an email to your Senators, and you can copy and paste the letter and send to other politicians, especially your representatives. This ruling by the Supremes is unconscionable to any normal person. It makes perfect sense to conservatives, who want to keep things the same:
  • No justice for "them"
  • No voting for that gender.
  • No marriage rights for "them".
  • No rights for anyone but "us".