« Oberstar: Mass Transit Got the Shaft to Make Room For Tax Cuts | Home | Roberts and Obama Reunite for Inaugural Do-Over »
A Noun, A Verb, And 'Trial Lawyers'
A GOP release on the Lily Ledbetter bill, which would allow women crucial time to sue for alleged pay discrimination, just hit my inbox. And it begins:
Senate Republicans will hold a press conference tomorrow, Thursday, January 22, at 11:30 a.m., in [location redacted] to discuss the Democrats' trial lawyer bailout bill ...
Nice to see that Republicans have found new enemies.
Advertisement
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
...Do the Republicans really have 41 votes to block this one?
January 21, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Snowe and Collins are a lock, at least.
January 21, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never underestimate a blue dog...
January 21, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why redact the location of their press conference?
January 21, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Elana wants to prevent them from having their feelings hurt, should people take issue with their continued backward behavior?
It'd be a shame if we had to drag Barney Frank out to "...speak uncharacteristically nicely..." to them, what with that button problem Barney's facing. They might think he's coming on to them. Or something.
January 21, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, you know where they're meeting: in a secret base under a caldera on a remote volcanic island. That or the top of the space needle.
January 21, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
New enemies? They've been flogging "trial lawyers" for decades.
Wonder how long it'll be before the GOP finally drags itself out of the intellectual rut it's in...
January 21, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just going to post this. Republicans have ALWAYS had it in for trial lawyers...usually in the guise of limiting liability for large corporations and businesses.
Although the last time they really were on the case of trial lawyers (so to speak) may have been the late 90's or early 2000's, and judging by Elana's videos, she may not have been tuned in to the political scene yet, since she was probably still in middle school. I guess we should cut her some slack on that one, then... ;-)
January 21, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon shrivti1 Elana may be young and cute but nobody gets a job at TPM without knowing their stuff. Besides Repubs went fullblown trial lawyer gaga in 2003 and 2007 every time they talked about John Edwards.
January 21, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not holding my breath. I was a young'un 40 years when Nixon made his deal with the devil, running against intellectualism.
See, the devil eventually comes to collect what he's owed.
January 21, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pro-torture and anti-woman in the same day...
January 21, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they say the Republicans are no longer the party of ideas.
January 21, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reading the article to which Elana provided a link.
The case law being addressed by the Democrats originates in the Supreme Court; as such, it is being widely used:
"Since the Supreme Court ruled in the Ledbetter case, federal judges across the country have employed the stricter standard in a variety of cases, including fair-housing lawsuits, age discrimination suits and lawsuits alleging discrimination in college athletics. "We now see pay claims being thrown out of court or not being filed at all," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center."
Any time, and I mean ANYTIME, equality for women suffers, everyone is affected. This is, as we can see in the application of the SC decision, broader than anti-woman; and the Republican's argument around tort reform is a typical, cliched, canard for that ilk and designed to deflect attention from what they are really doing: subverting homogeneous rights.
That's the agenda; explicit, or no...the preservation of inequity is a fundamental characteristic of governing by wedge issues. It's their strategy; and they will always default to it. They may verbalize rhetoric of equality; they may learn to give the appearance of governing equitably by the bills they propose; but they cannot deny their nature any more than a leopard can change its spots.
They are as committed to fundamental civil inequity, and in the same way, as the Taliban are committed to no music: fanatically and irredeemably. The Republicans will refuse to change.
January 21, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you can say that all Republicans are for something any more than you can say all Democrats are for something. What is true is that the wing of the party that is fundamentally against equality is in control of the party mechanism and leadership. How to deal with this? Some want to continue all-out war, but like the Hatfields and McCoys, this just leads to a worse and worse situation. Obama's approach is to work constructively with those Republicans who are not part of the Cuckoo wing. In so doing, you progressively undercut the support of the wingnuts and marginalize them. They won't go away, but their voices become really tiny and pretty soon you can hardly hear them. :-)
January 21, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He seems to have peeled off McCain without two much bother.
January 22, 2009 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the bill was just passed in Senate: 61-36.
See any Democrats (male or female) in this list?
NAYs ---36
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)--- Candidate for President
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
So yes, I can say it is the Party labelled Republican that subverts the homogenization of equity in our civil society. It sucks; but there it is in the vote on this bill.
The reality is that this is, and has been since Reagan, a knife fight; Lee Atwater, that hairbag from South Carolina, knew this: dirt bombs and waterguns are suboptimal.
I'm pretty sure I've learned that contrary to our hopes and no matter the context, the world will not be kind to the fuzzy nova of sensitivity that is naivety. It sucks; but here it is: how often and in how many variations do we, for whatever values of we you care to offer, have to hear:
"Damn, baby, that's nothing! Look what your face did to my fist!":
"Earlier in the day, the Senate voted 55-40 to reject an alternative by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. She and other Republicans contended that the legislation would effectively neutralize the statute of limitations, subject companies to more lawsuits and be a bonanza for trial lawyers."
And don't forget that justice delayed is justice denied:
"Workplace discrimination such as wage disparity was banned under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; but more than four decades later, women still receive only about 78 cents for every dollar earned by men for doing the same work."
January 23, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans are doing everything they can to marginalize themselves. So be it.
January 22, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I hadn't been told that this was about the Ledbetter bill, I never would have guessed what they were referring to with "trial lawyers bailout." These people are really reaching.
January 22, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, please keep hammering on the trial lawyers -- it's a sure path back to that permanent majority. Because, sure, people might want your namby-pamby health insurance and your no more stupid wars, but what really gets 'em hot and bothered is the vital need to stick it to the trial lawyers -- even though most of us have no idea what the hell a trial lawyer is or why we should hate them. It's just instinctive. Toss in a couple jokes about Edwards' hair and Michael Moore's weight and you've got yourself a thousand-year reich.
January 22, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I work at a small law firm, where we've laid off 3 associates in the past 3 months, and I thought for a minute there we were getting a bailout!
January 22, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This economy is hitting so many people who normally never got laid off. I can only imagine those who are left in your small firm... nervous about whether they too might lose their jobs.
In my community two local businesses have closed their doors that have been here for decades and were practically institutions. One was a chain of restaurants that emphasized healthy foods (from it's inception in the 50's I think). Another was a small chain of bookstores. When you see things that like it really hits you - how hard these times are, that for every closed business that means many people without jobs.
January 22, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink