Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Republicans in the Senate successfully prevented Democratic colleagues on Wednesday from considering a bill that would have overturned a Supreme Court decision giving employees only 180 days to make pay discrimination complaints. The filibuster by Republicans stood with a vote of 56-42, or four votes shy of the required 60 that would have overcome the legislative obstruction and allowed lawmakers to take up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
"I don't know how anyone would oppose something like this. It just makes sense that people should be treated fairly," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement posted on his website. "Democrats tried to restore equal pay for equal work regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability, but were again blocked by Republican tactics."
…………………………………………………………….
Lord have mercy! There is so much wrong with all of this.
First off, the Democrats have nothing to restore. There is no large scale wage discrimination in the country. The only way to contort statistics to show that men are paid more, than women for the same job is to compare men that work full time to women working part time in the same position. Everyone knows that the difference in wage is between full time and part time, not between men and women. So the Dems are really just swinging at windmills, not giants.
Look, if Harry Reid had really cared about Lilly Ledbetter, he would have discussed the issue with the Republicans whose support were needed in order to advance the bill. Instead, Reid rushed the bill to the floor in order to force a vote when he knew that Republicans would filibuster, according to the Wall Street Journal. This is nothing more than a partisan attempt to force a vote in an election year so that Reid can point his boney little finger and reinforce the stereotype that Republicans are uncompassionate sexists.
Look, maybe the law should give the victim 180 days to file a complaint from the time they learn of wage discrimination based on sex, race, or whatever. Practically however, we cannot determine when the victim learned of the discrimination. Was it when they became suspicious, when they overheard someone else talking about their pay check, or when they saw the pay roll documentation for the first time? This is too difficult for a court to determine and the court uses an objective standard. You have 6 months to file a complaint. The specific problem here is that allowing the alleged victim to file a complaint at any time could and would result in a flood of old litigation into the court. It would cost the tax payers more money for more litigation and would probably increase the frivolous suits arising under this “Fair Pay Act.” But this all speaks to a bigger problem: Dems have contempt for legal standards.
Legal standards level the playing field. Everyone has equal rights when the standards are objective and standards prevent abuse of the legal system. This case was decided before the merits of the case were considered because the statute ran. The plaintiff waited two decades until her boss died and she had already started receiving a pension before she filed a complaint. Isn’t this a good reason to dismiss the case? She didn’t file in a timely fashion. What would the Dems propose? Do they want us to get rid of these standards?
The answer is plainly, yes. Liberals despise any legal decision that offends their perverted consciences or just gives them cold prickly feelings inside. This is where the idea of the “living constitution” comes from. They would love to be able to give the constitution an amendment-ecotomy just like they celebrate the genital-ectomies of the transsexuals who claim to be a pregnant “man.” Imagine no freedom of speech…just like the communist dictators beloved by liberals. In John Lennon’s imagination, there would be no freedom of religion, because there would be no religion at all (except secularism and liberalism). Yes. Liberals would love to do away with freedoms, they aren’t even shy about saying it when it comes to second amendment rights. This reveals the big lie. Liberals are opposed to liberty. And Democrats hate democracy. The “living constitution” gives judges absolute authority to interpret the constitution according to what they believe to be right and wrong. And Democrats have no problem with judicial activism because it is the primary way to advance a leftist agenda against the will of the American people. But why should that matter? Right leaning Americans are all just a bunch of greedy, sexist, bigots anyway. Right, Mr. Reid?