Oh, NO he didn't!

I am not a big fan of many of Obama’s appointees so far. And I don’t know much about Elena Kagan except that she is a product of ivy-league education (how nice for her) and once took a stand against the government’s military recruitment policy (laudatory). So this is not a defense of Kagan or Obama or the Democratic Party.



That said, I read today in an article in WaPo that a Republican Senator is voicing concerns that “Obama planned to turn the (justice) department into a "liberal bastion."

Jeff Sessions; are you f*#@ing kidding me???



No, you Republican Senators that rubber-stamped nominees for Bush and turned a blind eye to obvious political appointments and FAILED in your responsibility to oversee the Executive Branch for the past eight years, you don’t get to say things like that. You get to keep your hypocritical mouth shut now. Because you did what you did during the prior administration, you have NO CREDIBILITY anymore. Obviously, you also lack a sense of shame.

To be fair, we should count the number of unqualified appointees that you and your fellow Republicans rubber-stamped and left unquestioned and you should not be allowed to voice any objection to any nominee until an equal number of Obama appointees has been reached. Surely you can see that this would be only FAIR, given the way you all arrogantly ignored and even ridiculed any sort of Democratic objections at the time you allowed Bush to appoint unqualified campaign supporters to crucial posts.

Oh, I realize that you are being pressured now. In the same WaPo article: “conservative groups have stepped up the pressure on committee Republicans to scrutinize Kagan and other Justice Department picks and criticized what they say are Democratic efforts to move the nominations too quickly.” That is another joke. Nobody but you and your Republican friends are listening to these delusional idealogues anymore. And that is making you look even more foolish than you already do (if that is even possible).

It has become painfully clear to the American people that your party’s whole agenda revolves around attempting to prevent any sort of meaningful change away from the failed policies that your party presided over that have brought our economy to its knees, destroyed our reputation in the world and brought untold misery and suffering to millions of people around the world. It is disgustingly clear that you and your colleagues have, and always will, put your own political ambitions and your party’s ideological agenda ahead of what is good for this country or the world and its people.

MEMO TO JEFF SESSIONS: It’s too late to cover your ass; we’ve already seen it and it is, indeed, an ugly sight. So, sit down, be quiet and take it like a man. While you are sitting there, you might reflect on your past failures, how your party can avoid failing the public in the future, and maybe even how you can atone for the destruction and pain that you have caused.

For those who doubt-Here is a great website to see some charts and graphs of the evidence of what the Republican party does to this country when it manages to get its hands on the reins. Take a look and then tell me that ANY Republican has a right to question anyone else's ideas on how to fix the mess they made.

http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/2605/kick-the-obstructionist-republicans

Sphere: Related Content

My New Favorite Word

There is this mind-bogglingly accurate portrayal of what Senate Republicans are doing on the Stimulus Bill posted at OpEdNews.com. If you click on the title of this blog, you will be taken directly there.

Rob Kall has invented my new favorite word. Economasturbation. Ypu have to read the whole article to really grasp the definition, but here is the gist of it:

The way they are regressing back to the failed tax cut idea. It is so mindless, so right wing reflexive- it is sub-cortical, dead-brained economasturbation.

I kept thinking that the Republicans were fiddling with themselves as the American economy was burning. Rob just gave the terminology to my thoughts.

Sphere: Related Content

Representatives MUST Represent

Recently, I wrote to my Congressman and Senators regarding the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Thanks to my Congressman, but NO THANKS to either of my obstructionist Republican Senators, the bill passed both houses and was signed into law by President Obama. My letter to my representatives appealed to them to support the Fair Pay Act which made it not easier, as the media was reporting, but POSSIBLE for someone who is being discriminated against to file for redress of grievance to the Court. Previous laws which set statutes of limitations did not address the possibility that someone might be unaware for years or decades that they were discriminated against at their place of employment. This law addresses that oversight.



That's the simple fact. Just as laws have been amended to fix the problem that arises with statutes of limitations in criminal cases where a victim is unable bring charges at the time of a crime for whatever reason, this law simply amends statutes of limitations so that people who are unaware that they are being paid less have further opportunity to file for redress. It doesn't help those that don't find out until after they leave a place of employment, though. So, it could have been even tougher.

Unfortunately, at least one of my Senators was either unable to grasp the concept of an amendment to a statute (in which case, he is not competent to hold the office) or he is being purposely obtuse. You decide. The text of his reply to me explaining his NO vote on this bill is pasted below:

Thank you for taking the time to write regarding pay discrimination. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
In 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Inc., a case that involved questions about the timeliness of claims filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This section of the law prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Court held that the plaintiff had not filed suit in a timely manner of 180 days of her pay being set.
In response to this ruling, multiple bills were introduced in Congress to supercede the Ledbetter decision. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 181). This bill clarifies that every paycheck from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Under this bill, as long as an employee files his or her charge of discrimination within 180 days of any discriminatory paycheck, the charge would be considered timely.
This legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 61-36. It also passed the House and was recently signed into law by President Obama (PL 111-1). I voted against this bill because it would eliminate long standing statutes of limitations in place to ensure disputes are resolved in a timely and fair manner. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I remain committed to supporting anti-discrimination and equal employment laws.
Pat Roberts

Now isn't that a typical Republican thing: to say "I support anti-discrimination and equal employment laws"--but forget to add "Only when I have to avoid looking like a heel and only if they are very WEAK and not constructive."

The question I have for Mr. Roberts is how can you solve a dispute in a timely manner when you don't even know that you have a dispute for years and years? How many years was Lilly Ledbetter paid less than her male co-workers before she found out that she was being paid less due to her gender? So, she's just out of luck because some arbitrary statute of limitation says it's okay for her employer to discriminate against her as long as she doesn't know about it? Mr. Roberts, have you ever heard the phrase "spirit of the law?"

Allow me to explain. Anti-discrimination laws protect people like me and my two daughters from employers who believe they can pay me less because I don't have a penis. That is "the spirit of the law." (Its intention is to protect me from wage discrimination.) But at every single place I have ever worked there have been policies in place that provide that workers are not allowed to discuss salary and wage information with other employees on threat of termination. So, if it is the intention of the law to protect me and my daughters from asshats who think they can get away with paying us less because they don't value the vagina, an employer can break the law with impunity by preventing us from finding out they are doing it. And that's okay with you, Mr. Roberts? You don't have a problem with that, Mr. I-sit-on-the-Committee-that-considers-and-writes-the-laws-that-are-supposed-to-protect-you?

Answer this, Senator Roberts: How is it FAIR to me that I am being paid less, in violation of the law, but I am not allowed access to the information that would reveal this information to me, and, if I do find out somehow, I can't file for redress or monetary damages unless I know about it when I take the job? WOMEN AREN'T STUPID, MR. ROBERTS. If they KNEW they were being screwed over, they wouldn't take less pay in the first place. But you believe it is unfair for me to be able to address the issue when I find out about because of some loophole like a statute of limitations?

Folks, Senator Roberts has a wife and two daughters. I guess it's okay for whoever is currently employing his wife and two daughters (assuming that they actually WORK for a living) to pay them less due to their inferior private parts as long as they don't know about it or can't find out about it in time to file for redress under the statute of limitations.

Can someone tell me why this doesn't disqualify him from sitting on the Senate Committee????



SENATOR PAT ROBERTS--Discriminatory Asshat of the Day

Sphere: Related Content