Obama signs first piece of legislation

[MoonWater]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html?em

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html?em

 

[WishfulThinking]

The other day when this passed in congress I thought I was going to have a heart attack when I realized that it would be signed this time around. I'm a little reserved in my glee over it--although I am totally happy!--because most of what it does is restore the Title VII legislation that the Robert's Court shredded two summers ago with their ruling in Ledbetter. Hopefully the Paycheck Fairness Act will also be passed to help bolster this measure appropriately.

ETA: That NY Times article is REALLY misleading about the facts of Ledbetter's case and about the effect of the SCOTUS ruling on it. Someone didn't do their legal research very well.

 

[MoonWater]

*keeping fingers crossed*

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 7:57:24 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

ETA: That NY Times article is REALLY misleading about the facts of Ledbetter's case and about the effect of the SCOTUS ruling on it. Someone didn't do their legal research very well.

Ha! Write to them!!

ETA: I'm frustrated that she has no way of getting what she's due.

 

[MoonWater]

this article goes a bit more in depth...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012901887.html

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:10:45 PM
Author: MoonWater
this article goes a bit more in depth...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012901887.html

This is a MUCH better article. Seriously, the other one is almost so egregious as to be misleading. This one actually explains what happened to people who didn''t spend the last 3 years following the whole thing and reading all of the documents and decisions. Not everyone is me.

Also, you just might be in my head. I''d totally just emailed them to tell them how much their article sucks and to ask them if they could please stop reporting as if they were a certain other news outlet which shall not be named in mixed company.

 

[MoonWater]

Hahahaha! That was pretty bad, actually more lazy. Why leave all that info out? ETA: oh, and you're a geek!

 

[WishfulThinking]

The first thing I did once I'd read the whole thing was check *again* to see if it was really the NY Times. Quite honestly it does seem lazy but I also got this really weird connotation from it, as if it was downplaying the facts of the case in such a way as to make it seem like Ledbetter just decided out of the blue to sue one day way after she'd retired for funsies. Which was not how the case went. And then it went on to describe how it "relaxed" the statutes of limitation... which it only did *sort of* because the SCOTUS had made a ridiculous decision that strictly defined them in such a way as to preclude anyone from suing for employment discrimination ever. The SCOTUS basically redefined the statute of limitations for these cases and the Ledbetter Act is just fixing them pretty much back to where they were. Which, incidentally, is what the Robert's Court seemed to want. They played dumb about the "intent" of the stated statute of limitations in the original Title VII legislation and invited congress to go back and specify what they "really" meant by it. So now they've done that.

Anyways, the article seemed to prey on all the misguided fears people have about this legislation and what it really does. AHHHH IT'LL UNLEASH THE GATES OF HELL AND EMPLOYERS WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES FOREVVVAAAA.

Although that honestly doesn't sound so bad to me, it's NOT what the legislation does. You'd think it was written by Faux or some other conservative joint.

ETA: Yup. Huge geek here!

 

[MoonWater]

I didn't follow this case so my info actually came from the WP article (which I read earlier in the day but didn't decide to post until later on). I did a google search and the NYT came up first, I figured it would be on par with the WP article and didn't even read it first. Anyhoo, I read the article afterwards and I was like...where's the info about how she found out? It was like she knew all that time she was getting paid less and didn't care until much later.

Then it was how the SCOTUS decision was described, "relaxing" was definitely a poor choice of words. I was confused (should go back and read the case now that I think about it) because how on Earth could someone sue on the basis of discrimination 6 months after it occurs if they have no idea it's occuring? That didn't jive with other statue of limitation cases I read (re: predatory lending practices, the details are fuzzy at this point, that class was little while back), which indicated that the time period wouldn't start until after the person was aware (or had sufficient time and methods to become aware) that the issue was occuring.

I'm exhausted...did that make sense?

ETA: I see what you mean re: the weird connotation, pretty freaking shady...wonder what the motive would be tho...

 

[WishfulThinking]

On another note, the man makes me want to scream sometimes... and not in an altogether positive sort of way.

Obama's words:
"It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign ... we are upholding one of this nation's first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness..."

ORLY? Yeah, I wish.
/digging myself a hole in ATW

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:41:08 PM
Author: WishfulThinking
On another note, the man makes me want to scream sometimes... and not in an altogether positive sort of way.

Obama''s words:
''It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign ... we are upholding one of this nation''s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness...''

ORLY? Yeah, I wish.
/digging myself a hole in ATW

Yes, I read that and immediately thought of you. Also I noted there was no mention of sexual orientation as one of the methods of discrimination.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:40:11 PM
Author: MoonWater
I didn''t follow this case so my info actually came from the WP article (which I read earlier in the day but didn''t decide to post until later on). I did a google search and the NYT came up first, I figured it would be on par with the WP article and didn''t even read it first. Anyhoo, I read the article afterwards and I was like...where''s the info about how she found out? It was like she knew all that time she was getting paid less and didn''t care until much later.


Then it was how the SCOTUS decision was described, ''relaxing'' was definitely a poor choice of words. I was confused (should go back and read the case now that I think about it) because how on Earth could someone sue on the basis of discrimination 6 months after it occurs if they have no idea it''s occuring? That didn''t jive with other statue of limitation cases I read (re: predatory lending practices, the details are fuzzy at this point, that class was little while back), which indicated that the time period wouldn''t start until after the person was aware (or had sufficient time and methods to become aware) that the issue was occuring.


I''m exhausted...did that make sense?


ETA: I see what you mean re: the weird connotation, pretty freaking shady...wonder what the motive would be tho...

It did make sense. The SCOTUS thing was crazed because it essentially did say that people should somehow know when they''re being discriminated against within a certain time frame, and if they don''t it''s just tough beans for them. In the past court decisions have made provisions for these things. For example, if a discriminatory pay scale is set on the first day of a job, every single paycheck that employee receives is another "act" of discrimination. Every raise, every bonus... all are in proportion to the original amount, which was a lower amount based on ______ [in this case it was an excellently defined example of sex discrimination adequately proven. The issue was the statute of limitations not the evidence against Goodyear.] Other cases used a slightly looser method, which is that the case had to be filed in a timely fashion once the discrimination is discovered. Both versions were allowable under Title VII before the Ledbetter court decision. This Act just restores those possibilities by saying the suit can be brought within 6 months of finding out about the discrimination. After Ledbetter''s case was lost it was virtually impossible for an employee to sue under Title VII legislation because the timeframe was whacked.

I''ve seen the NY Times become visibly more centrist and even relatively conservative on some issues over the years. I know I''m pretty much inviting people to come in here and attack me, but I read it every day along with CNN, Fox, WaPo, etc. [trying to get all angles!] and it always makes me scratch my head in confusion.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:43:41 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 8:41:08 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

On another note, the man makes me want to scream sometimes... and not in an altogether positive sort of way.


Obama''s words:

''It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign ... we are upholding one of this nation''s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness...''


ORLY? Yeah, I wish.

/digging myself a hole in ATW

Yes, I read that and immediately thought of you. Also I noted there was no mention of sexual orientation as one of the methods of discrimination.

That''s because in all but 12 states, firing someone because they''re gay is perfectly, 100% LEGAL!! Yippee! It actually happens fairly frequently. There are two cases that have made minimal news coverage recently. Actually, even more lovely, is that you don''t even have to BE gay... they just have to say they think you might be. Businesses in most states are also well within their rights to refuse to serve me because I''m gay. It''s just lovely. Hopefully Obama will pass ENDA soon [employment nondiscrimination act] which would add sexual orientation and gender identity and presentation to federal employment non-discrimination policies [which currently protect based on race, sex, religion, and national origin.]

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:49:00 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

It did make sense. The SCOTUS thing was crazed because it essentially did say that people should somehow know when they're being discriminated against within a certain time frame, and if they don't it's just tough beans for them. In the past court decisions have made provisions for these things. For example, if a discriminatory pay scale is set on the first day of a job, every single paycheck that employee receives is another 'act' of discrimination. Every raise, every bonus... all are in proportion to the original amount, which was a lower amount based on ______ [in this case it was an excellently defined example of sex discrimination adequately proven. The issue was the statute of limitations not the evidence against Goodyear.] Other cases used a slightly looser method, which is that the case had to be filed in a timely fashion once the discrimination is discovered. Both versions were allowable under Title VII before the Ledbetter court decision. This Act just restores those possibilities by saying the suit can be brought within 6 months of finding out about the discrimination. After Ledbetter's case was lost it was virtually impossible for an employee to sue under Title VII legislation because the timeframe was whacked.

I've seen the NY Times become visibly more centrist and even relatively conservative on some issues over the years. I know I'm pretty much inviting people to come in here and attack me, but I read it every day along with CNN, Fox, WaPo, etc. [trying to get all angles!] and it always makes me scratch my head in confusion.

Ok, now that you've laid out what happened with the SCOTUS for me, I'm even more pissed off. What the flying heck were they thinking? That's utterly moronic and the decision made the law, well, useless. Considering how illogical that ruling was do you think it's anyway to get her some type of compensation? You're the Constitutional Law junkie (btw, I need to hit you up for book recommendations), is it possible? I just can't believe this woman walks away with nothing but a law named after her. (that's great too but show me the

)

Oh and kudos to you for getting all angles. Reminds me of DH. I'm noticing a pattern here with the chicks I love on this forum. All remind me of DH in some way lol.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:52:47 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 8:43:41 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 8:41:08 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

On another note, the man makes me want to scream sometimes... and not in an altogether positive sort of way.


Obama''s words:

''It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign ... we are upholding one of this nation''s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness...''


ORLY? Yeah, I wish.

/digging myself a hole in ATW

Yes, I read that and immediately thought of you. Also I noted there was no mention of sexual orientation as one of the methods of discrimination.

That''s because in all but 12 states, firing someone because they''re gay is perfectly, 100% LEGAL!! Yippee! It actually happens fairly frequently. There are two cases that have made minimal news coverage recently. Actually, even more lovely, is that you don''t even have to BE gay... they just have to say they think you might be. Businesses in most states are also well within their rights to refuse to serve me because I''m gay. It''s just lovely. Hopefully Obama will pass ENDA soon [employment nondiscrimination act] which would add sexual orientation and gender identity and presentation to federal employment non-discrimination policies [which currently protect based on race, sex, religion, and national origin.]

Here''s where I get so angry and frustrated that nothing but syllables and curse words come flying out of my mouth. There really are no words. I know Obama has been pretty damn disappointing on this front but I''m hoping he has some sort of strategy where he''s easing into somethings so that the opposition isn''t as strong (i.e. avoiding things which may result in immediate success but a quick reversal). And I really hope he gets ENDA passed ASAP.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:55:31 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 8:49:00 PM

Author: WishfulThinking


It did make sense. The SCOTUS thing was crazed because it essentially did say that people should somehow know when they''re being discriminated against within a certain time frame, and if they don''t it''s just tough beans for them. In the past court decisions have made provisions for these things. For example, if a discriminatory pay scale is set on the first day of a job, every single paycheck that employee receives is another ''act'' of discrimination. Every raise, every bonus... all are in proportion to the original amount, which was a lower amount based on ______ [in this case it was an excellently defined example of sex discrimination adequately proven. The issue was the statute of limitations not the evidence against Goodyear.] Other cases used a slightly looser method, which is that the case had to be filed in a timely fashion once the discrimination is discovered. Both versions were allowable under Title VII before the Ledbetter court decision. This Act just restores those possibilities by saying the suit can be brought within 6 months of finding out about the discrimination. After Ledbetter''s case was lost it was virtually impossible for an employee to sue under Title VII legislation because the timeframe was whacked.


I''ve seen the NY Times become visibly more centrist and even relatively conservative on some issues over the years. I know I''m pretty much inviting people to come in here and attack me, but I read it every day along with CNN, Fox, WaPo, etc. [trying to get all angles!] and it always makes me scratch my head in confusion.

Ok, now that you''ve laid out what happened with the SCOTUS for me, I''m even more pissed off. What the flying heck were they thinking? That''s utterly moronic and the decision made the law, well, useless. Considering how illogical that ruling was do you think it''s anyway to get her some type of compensation? You''re the Constitutional Law junkie (btw, I need to hit you up for book recommendations), is it possible? I just can''t believe this woman walks away with nothing but a law named after her. (that''s great too but show me the

)


Oh and kudos to you for getting all angles. Reminds me of DH. I''m noticing a pattern here with the chicks I love on this forum. All remind me of DH in some way lol.

I so, so wish that it was possible for her to be compensated. It''s sucky that she got stuck with the stupid Roberts Court. Unfortunately they''re allowed to do that, and since it''s been tried once she can''t bring the same case again. They were thinking that they''re for the most part very conservative and a lot of them are strict constructionists. In general they''re terrible on women''s issues to begin with, but this was even worse because the case allowed them to feign confusion about the intent of the Title VII legislation while hiding behind their strict constructionist standpoint-- if it doesn''t say it *exactly* we won''t rule that way. The decision did make the law useless. It was really disturbing. The Ledbetter Act actually passed in congress toward the end of Bush''s term, but he vetoed it. McCain on the campaign trail came out against it as well, although like Bush, he attributed things to the act that it doesn''t do. Called it an open invitation to sue back decades... obviously the guy has never read the text of the legislation, which is too bad, considering that he was supposed to be voting on it [he wasn''t present for the vote because he was on the campaign trail. I HATE when they do that.]
Lilly is a real star and has been very gracious about the whole situation. I do believe there is a trust set up for her someplace that is accepting donations, but I imagine it probably has a fair amount of support. I think she will be well taken care of, but unfortunately not at the expense of the jerkwads who thought she was worse less because of her naughty bits.

And thank you. Your DH sounds like a very cool guy! ...if I do say so myself.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:00:04 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 8:52:47 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 8:43:41 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 8:41:08 PM


Author: WishfulThinking


On another note, the man makes me want to scream sometimes... and not in an altogether positive sort of way.



Obama''s words:


''It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign ... we are upholding one of this nation''s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness...''



ORLY? Yeah, I wish.


/digging myself a hole in ATW

Yes, I read that and immediately thought of you. Also I noted there was no mention of sexual orientation as one of the methods of discrimination.

That''s because in all but 12 states, firing someone because they''re gay is perfectly, 100% LEGAL!! Yippee! It actually happens fairly frequently. There are two cases that have made minimal news coverage recently. Actually, even more lovely, is that you don''t even have to BE gay... they just have to say they think you might be. Businesses in most states are also well within their rights to refuse to serve me because I''m gay. It''s just lovely. Hopefully Obama will pass ENDA soon [employment nondiscrimination act] which would add sexual orientation and gender identity and presentation to federal employment non-discrimination policies [which currently protect based on race, sex, religion, and national origin.]

Here''s where I get so angry and frustrated that nothing but syllables and curse words come flying out of my mouth. There really are no words. I know Obama has been pretty damn disappointing on this front but I''m hoping he has some sort of strategy where he''s easing into somethings so that the opposition isn''t as strong (i.e. avoiding things which may result in immediate success but a quick reversal). And I really hope he gets ENDA passed ASAP.

I like to secretly hope he does, but honestly I am not going to hold my breath. He''s not a bad guy, but he is pretty wishywashy when it comes to me and my rights. I will applaud everything he does that is great, but I will Call.Him.Out. every day until I get what I deserve as well. I think Obama and politicians like him will continue to ease... and ease... and ease and ease and ease and without their taking a strong stance on it public opinion is never going to change and we''ll all be dead by the time everyone came around. SCOTUS passed Loving v. Virginia in 1967 legalizing interracial marriage nation-wide, but it wasn''t until NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR that the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriage should be legal. I''m pretty damn glad they didn''t sit around waiting for everyone to change their minds on that one. ENDA should be a sure thing in congress and Obama will sign it, but no one seems to be moving on making it happen. It''s also likely to screw over transpeople, so I am NOT excited about that possibility. What''s the use of having protection for myself if it''s at the expense of so many of my loved ones, ya know?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:01:48 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

I so, so wish that it was possible for her to be compensated. It''s sucky that she got stuck with the stupid Roberts Court. Unfortunately they''re allowed to do that, and since it''s been tried once she can''t bring the same case again. They were thinking that they''re for the most part very conservative and a lot of them are strict constructionists. In general they''re terrible on women''s issues to begin with, but this was even worse because the case allowed them to feign confusion about the intent of the Title VII legislation while hiding behind their strict constructionist standpoint-- if it doesn''t say it *exactly* we won''t rule that way. The decision did make the law useless. It was really disturbing. The Ledbetter Act actually passed in congress toward the end of Bush''s term, but he vetoed it. McCain on the campaign trail came out against it as well, although like Bush, he attributed things to the act that it doesn''t do. Called it an open invitation to sue back decades... obviously the guy has never read the text of the legislation, which is too bad, considering that he was supposed to be voting on it [he wasn''t present for the vote because he was on the campaign trail. I HATE when they do that.]
Lilly is a real star and has been very gracious about the whole situation. I do believe there is a trust set up for her someplace that is accepting donations, but I imagine it probably has a fair amount of support. I think she will be well taken care of, but unfortunately not at the expense of the jerkwads who thought she was worse less because of her naughty bits.

And thank you. Your DH sounds like a very cool guy! ...if I do say so myself.

Yeah, a bunch of smart lawyers who were appointed judges of the SCOTUS couldn''t figure out the intent of Title VII, yup, I totally believe that.

It''s pretty freaking annoying when people deliberately read the law incorrectly. It just seem so blantantly obvious how ridiculous that decision was. Ugh. Well, I''m glad she''s being taken care of, in spite of her naughty bits lol.

DH is a cool guy. When I finally get your paper on Arendt I''m giving it to him. Granted he probably won''t get to it until the semester is over. I''m not sure how far into OOT he is, I think he stopped due to classes (and the wedding, and the election, god we were nuts last year). But while he was reading it he went on and on about it so I think he''ll be interested in your piece.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:10:02 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 9:01:48 PM

Author: WishfulThinking


I so, so wish that it was possible for her to be compensated. It's sucky that she got stuck with the stupid Roberts Court. Unfortunately they're allowed to do that, and since it's been tried once she can't bring the same case again. They were thinking that they're for the most part very conservative and a lot of them are strict constructionists. In general they're terrible on women's issues to begin with, but this was even worse because the case allowed them to feign confusion about the intent of the Title VII legislation while hiding behind their strict constructionist standpoint-- if it doesn't say it *exactly* we won't rule that way. The decision did make the law useless. It was really disturbing. The Ledbetter Act actually passed in congress toward the end of Bush's term, but he vetoed it. McCain on the campaign trail came out against it as well, although like Bush, he attributed things to the act that it doesn't do. Called it an open invitation to sue back decades... obviously the guy has never read the text of the legislation, which is too bad, considering that he was supposed to be voting on it [he wasn't present for the vote because he was on the campaign trail. I HATE when they do that.]

Lilly is a real star and has been very gracious about the whole situation. I do believe there is a trust set up for her someplace that is accepting donations, but I imagine it probably has a fair amount of support. I think she will be well taken care of, but unfortunately not at the expense of the jerkwads who thought she was worse less because of her naughty bits.

And thank you. Your DH sounds like a very cool guy! ...if I do say so myself.

Yeah, a bunch of smart lawyers who were appointed judges of the SCOTUS couldn't figure out the intent of Title VII, yup, I totally believe that.

It's pretty freaking annoying when people deliberately read the law incorrectly. It just seem so blantantly obvious how ridiculous that decision was. Ugh. Well, I'm glad she's being taken care of, in spite of her naughty bits lol.


DH is a cool guy. When I finally get your paper on Arendt I'm giving it to him. Granted he probably won't get to it until the semester is over. I'm not sure how far into OOT he is, I think he stopped due to classes (and the wedding, and the election, god we were nuts last year). But while he was reading it he went on and on about it so I think he'll be interested in your piece.

I pretty much loathe them. After Gonzalez v. Carhart was handed down I almost had a seizure reading the decision... it was all religion and morality and literally not a single piece of factual evidence or constitutional backing. I was appalled. But that's another thread... HAH.
If you want me to send it to you I can do so right now. Again with the laughing, though. I totally understand about feeling insane and not having time. Karen just sent me this awesome piece that I so want to read, but I don't think I'll have time for a few weeks at least. Arendt is sort of the greatest. If you DH liked OOT I bet he would like The Human Condition. It's my absolute favourite, and one of my favourite books in general. On Violence is also great and very short.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:06:08 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

I like to secretly hope he does, but honestly I am not going to hold my breath. He''s not a bad guy, but he is pretty wishywashy when it comes to me and my rights. I will applaud everything he does that is great, but I will Call.Him.Out. every day until I get what I deserve as well. I think Obama and politicians like him will continue to ease... and ease... and ease and ease and ease and without their taking a strong stance on it public opinion is never going to change and we''ll all be dead by the time everyone came around. SCOTUS passed Loving v. Virginia in 1967 legalizing interracial marriage nation-wide, but it wasn''t until NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR that the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriage should be legal. I''m pretty damn glad they didn''t sit around waiting for everyone to change their minds on that one. ENDA should be a sure thing in congress and Obama will sign it, but no one seems to be moving on making it happen. It''s also likely to screw over transpeople, so I am NOT excited about that possibility. What''s the use of having protection for myself if it''s at the expense of so many of my loved ones, ya know?

All understandable but I still think you should take any decisions to move forward knowing that other things will come in the future, even if it isn''t in your life time. A first step must be taken before any succeeding steps can come. Win a battle, even one at a time, and keep fighting until you''ve won the war. Although I agree on your point about Loving, the gay marriage issue needs to be put to rest regardless of public opinion simply because it violates the 14th Amendment. I''m totally baffled on why there is still an argument from a legal standpoint. But even if we won that one there are other areas of the law where discrimination against gays needs to be eradicated (which is what I was referring to in the begin of this posting). I am really hoping it is an ease strategy and not a wishywashy thing. I''m hoping what he has in mind is a method to avoid a situation like what occurred during the rise and eventual downfall of Reconstruction.

Heavens I am so sleepy! I''m at work waiting for DH to get out of class...I think the 2 months of insomnia just caught up with me!!!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:13:52 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

I pretty much loathe them. After Gonzalez v. Carhart was handed down I almost had a seizure reading the decision... it was all religion and morality and literally not a single piece of factual evidence or constitutional backing. I was appalled. But that''s another thread... HAH.
If you want me to send it to you I can do so right now. Again with the laughing, though. I totally understand about feeling insane and not having time. Karen just sent me this awesome piece that I so want to read, but I don''t think I''ll have time for a few weeks at least. Arendt is sort of the greatest. If you DH liked OOT I bet he would like The Human Condition. It''s my absolute favourite, and one of my favourite books in general. On Violence is also great and very short.

I don''t even want to read the decisions you''re reading. I had a hard enough time reading decisions from a century ago! And I swear, some of these judges are too into themselves. Their writing is atrocious.

My to read list is rediculously long. I''m reading multiple books at once (not counting the ones for class!!). I remember one semester I crammed in school reading just to get to my fun reading! I feel like I''ll be doing it again this semester. Ok, I need to check the bookshelf to see if DH already has those books!

 

[iheartscience]

I love learning stuff from you smarties on ATW! And I love fighting with everyone else!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:20:39 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 9:06:08 PM

Author: WishfulThinking


I like to secretly hope he does, but honestly I am not going to hold my breath. He''s not a bad guy, but he is pretty wishywashy when it comes to me and my rights. I will applaud everything he does that is great, but I will Call.Him.Out. every day until I get what I deserve as well. I think Obama and politicians like him will continue to ease... and ease... and ease and ease and ease and without their taking a strong stance on it public opinion is never going to change and we''ll all be dead by the time everyone came around. SCOTUS passed Loving v. Virginia in 1967 legalizing interracial marriage nation-wide, but it wasn''t until NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR that the majority of Americans believed that interracial marriage should be legal. I''m pretty damn glad they didn''t sit around waiting for everyone to change their minds on that one. ENDA should be a sure thing in congress and Obama will sign it, but no one seems to be moving on making it happen. It''s also likely to screw over transpeople, so I am NOT excited about that possibility. What''s the use of having protection for myself if it''s at the expense of so many of my loved ones, ya know?

All understandable but I still think you should take any decisions to move forward knowing that other things will come in the future, even if it isn''t in your life time. A first step must be taken before any succeeding steps can come. Win a battle, even one at a time, and keep fighting until you''ve won the war. Although I agree on your point about Loving, the gay marriage issue needs to be put to rest regardless of public opinion simply because it violates the 14th Amendment. I''m totally baffled on why there is still an argument from a legal standpoint. But even if we won that one there are other areas of the law where discrimination against gays needs to be eradicated (which is what I was referring to in the begin of this posting). I am really hoping it is an ease strategy and not a wishywashy thing. I''m hoping what he has in mind is a method to avoid a situation like what occurred during the rise and eventual downfall of Reconstruction.


Heavens I am so sleepy! I''m at work waiting for DH to get out of class...I think the 2 months of insomnia just caught up with me!!!

The marriage thing is really the only place he''s wishing and washing, which is good, and admirable as well, imo. The other things will come much sooner, although they too are rooted in the 14th Amendment... methinks Obama will end up in a constitutional bind advocating for one policy but not another when they''re based on the same reasoning.

I''ve about given up on fun reading for now, but I swear someday I''ll be able to start again!

I do not consider the scads of Supreme Court decisions I read every few weeks to be fun reading, even though they''re not specifically for class. I think of it as a rounding out of my politics degree. I have issues, admittedly.

Thingo! We love you too.

 

[MoonWater]

Let''s keep our fingers crossed Wishful. The man did teach Constitutional Law after all. One of my attorneys was a former student of his and he confirms that the man is a genius. So I''m hoping something good is being worked out in that head of his regarding these issues.

And of course thing, we love you too. Hmm...we need Obama to work out some other law on marriage that allows it to be multi-gender, multi-sexual orientation, multi-race er....I''m tired...we all need to get married to each other hahahaha.

*passes out*

 

[Gayletmom]

Excuse me for lurking but I just had to say thanks to both of you for your enlightening banter. Con law was my favorite, favorite , favorite class and how I wish my life as a practitioner had been half that much fun. I''m on an extended "sabbatical" now raising kids but following your conversation really makes me miss the law (or at least, law school). I haven''t followed the SCOTUS cases particularly closely in recent years because just reading a summary in the newspaper often makes my blood boil but I do love this stuff. Was thrilled to hear about the bill passed today but it just doesn''t seem right that Ms. Ledbetter doesn''t get any comp.

And Wishful, I share your frustration over our new Pres''s noncommittal approach to gay rights. I''m hopeful that he will be more pro-active than he has let on thus far but I know that the waiting must be incredibly frustrating. Just know that you have right on your side and we''re all in this together.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Fingers definitely crossed, Moon. Obama knows better, which is why I hold him to a higher standard. He''s absolutely a genius and he doesn''t believe for even 5 seconds some of the stuff he says about marriage. I just wish he was less of a politician and I''m a little bitter.

Hi Gayletmom! Glad that our little chat was fun to read. It was fun to type. I love this stuff. Are you a lawyer? I sort of long to go to law school, but I am pretty sure I wouldn''t like practicing law, so I''m exploring other options. Perhaps someday. *sigh* It''s a huge hobby of mine, though. It''s nice to know I''m not alone in my boiling blood. Sometimes I swear my head will explode with frustration, but I''ve become used to sewing it back on again.

Thanks for the kind words of support. I''m trying not to lose it but it''s a daily battle and something I''m sad to say I''ve been handling less than gracefully lately.

 

[Gayletmom]

Yes to the lawyer part although my years doing defense work for a big firm (student loans, ya know) were less than satisfying. I''m hoping to find something more fulfilling when the kiddies are older. The nice thing is that we have gotten used to living on one salary so I''m hoping I can find something that I love even if it doesn''t pay alot. In law school, I studied environmental law which was fun so I may go back to that or some sort of public advocacy.

I''ll join your "not handling it gracefully" club. Over a few drinks recently a dear friend was teasing me about my inability to hold it together when people spout idiotic political nonsense. I tend to come unglued when someone runs on at the mouth and doesn''t know the subject matter but just a few buzz words or slogans. I''m perfectly happy to have a lengthy and respectful disagreement among people who are well informed but I seem to run across the know-it-all yahoo types instead.

So how do you stay so up-to-date? I just assumed you were a law student/scholar. I''m impressed with your grasp of the subject.

And you are both right, Obama does know better. Guess we''d better just hold his feet to the fire!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 11:21:43 PM
Author: Gayletmom

I''ll join your ''not handling it gracefully'' club. Over a few drinks recently a dear friend was teasing me about my inability to hold it together when people spout idiotic political nonsense. I tend to come unglued when someone runs on at the mouth and doesn''t know the subject matter but just a few buzz words or slogans. I''m perfectly happy to have a lengthy and respectful disagreement among people who are well informed but I seem to run across the know-it-all yahoo types instead.

Haha, this is hilarious because I find myself in this situation often.

I want to go to law school but I don''t want to practice. But it''s so freaking expensive you have to practice to get out of debt.

Wishful, have you ever considered a public policy degree? Or something related to public policy? I mean you''re pretty young to be so well informed and articulate, I think you should shoot for a PhD from a School of Public Affairs so you can teach, write articles and books, and be a guest speaker at events and on tv programs!!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Gayletmom, I hear you on the student loans thing. Eeek! It's great that you're used to living on one income and may consider going into something less lucrative that you love more. That's so awesome! I think environmental law is extremely interesting, and I haven't been following as closely as I should. Back in winter of '07 [I think?] there was a US Supreme Court case about carbon emissions and global warming that involved the EPA, but I haven't looked at it since. Public advocacy is also awesome. In short, you are just great!

I am the same way with political stuff. I am trying to figure out ways to build common ground lately because I am SO frustrated with arguing with people and being angry all the time. On some issues I have been much more capable of doing this, but when it comes to my very intimate personal life it is a little too close to home and I end up in tears. I am a big baby, but I have no desire to be forcibly divorced, and that potential is one of the worst things I've ever felt... although I suppose that makes me rather privileged in and of itself, but it's still yucky.

I'm actually not a law student! My entire life I have loved law and longed to go to law school, so I've followed this stuff closely since high school. I recently decided that practicing law was probably not for me, so I'm planning to get a PhD instead, although I may ultimately decide to get a law degree as well. Thank you for the nice compliment. I've spent a lot of time trying to learn this stuff, and have only taken a few undergrad law courses, so I'm sure my grasp of it is nothing compared to professionals. I have just carefully followed the experts' arguments on many subjects and am able to regurgitate them pretty efficiently, and have gotten relatively good at explaining them in lay terms so I can try to reason with people using legal arguments. Only mildly successfully, but I can always try! I am still an undergrad student, and I follow politics very closely, and have found it to be VERY intertwined with legal issues on so many levels that I feel I cannot understand it properly without that background. I spend way too much time on it, clearly, but I do enjoy it!

You are sweet, Moon. I am all torn up about what I want to study. Sheesh, such a threadjack, but since it's your thread I'll answer your questions.

I want to get a PhD and I know I want to be a professor and write articles and books. What I'm not sure about is what subject to go for! At this point it's a tossup between Political Science, where I'd have an emphasis in political theory

[my 2nd true love after DW] and hopefully study policy and legal issues--think critical legal studies--from a more theoretical perspective that includes critical theory and incorporates a lot of gender studies theory and all that jazz. My other love. My undergrad thesis is basically doing this combo, so I have the background in it. I could do public policy but I feel like I'd be unhappy working outside of academia with something like that... I think I am overly trained in theory to deal with working in the "system" [is that bad?]. I do like the Jurisprudence and Social Policy programs, though. Then there's always Gender Studies or Feminist Studies, or maybe Cultural Studies/Queer Studies, which are interdisciplinary enough to study politics as well. Blah I just want to hang out in the Ivory Tower.

I'm one of "those liberals."

I will write books, though!! Or I could always be Rachel Maddow!!!
/huuuuge threadjack, oh no!

 

[MoonWater]

I feel you on the Public Policy degree, the curriculum looked pretty boring to me. But I kept searching and I fell in love with this program at American: http://spa.american.edu/department.php?dept=djls It looks like it could be up your alley. I don't imagine a "system" job with it, more like academia. I figured other schools around the country, like ya know, in California

would have something similar.