E at WCBF applauds Republican Rep. Joseph Cao for joining Democrats on the SChip vote. However, he says Cao's vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a "major disappointment", and links to alli's discussion of the bill at
Fiyou on da Bayou. In her post, Alli linked to the
Roll Call vote tally, showing Cao siding with 165 other Republicans who voted "Nay" on the Act.
So, from a Progressive's viewpoint Cao went 1 for 2. Good on SChip, bad on Fair pay.
Then why does the
Times Picayune story on Cao's vote say the following?
New Orleans Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao parted company with the other Republicans in the Louisiana delegation Wednesday, voting to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program for the poor, a prime Democratic legislative goal.
Again: Yay!
It was the second time since Cao was sworn into Congress last week that he found himself voting contrary to the other five Republicans in the Louisiana delegation. Last week he supported another Democratic initiative intended to improve the prospects of women pressing wage discrimination cases in court.
Say What!??
===
Update: In the
comments, E explains:
[C]ao voted yes on HR 12, to add the paycheck fairness act onto the end of HR 11, the ledbetter act, on which cao voted no.
7 other republicans and 2 democrats voted yes on HR 12 and voted no or did not vote on HR 11.
So Cao voted yes to the law but no to enforcement of the law. Or otherwise he just wants to be able to say he voted for equal pay even though he actually sought to kill the more substantive remedy.
Labels: Cao
15 Comments:
rut ro! retraction?
okay i figured it out.
cao voted yes on HR 12, to add the paycheck fairness act onto the end of HR 11, the ledbetter act, on which cao voted no.
7 other republicans and 2 democrats voted yes on HR 12 and voted no or did not vote on HR 11.
So Cao voted yes to the law but no to enforcement of the law. Or otherwise he just wants to be able to say he voted for equal pay even though he actually sought to kill the more substantive remedy.
E Stated the following:
"cao voted yes on HR 12, to add the paycheck fairness act onto the end of HR 11, the ledbetter act, on which cao voted no.
7 other republicans and 2 democrats voted yes on HR 12 and voted no or did not vote on HR 11.
So Cao voted yes to the law but no to enforcement of the law. Or otherwise he just wants to be able to say he voted for equal pay even though he actually sought to kill the more substantive remedy."
Please note that he did not capitalize the letter "C" when he began his comment with "Cao"
Also, the word "okay" should have been was entirely in lower case.
he's right, i retract my comments
Did we really expect quality coverage from T-P?
Over at the Yellow blog Owen Courreges had some interesting comments on the Ledbetter Act, including a fairly good discussion of the reasons it might not have been such a good idea in the first place..
I added my comment over there.
This legislation was needed, and his vote against it is one of many bad votes I am sure we will get from Cao.
Well, Daniel, while he may disappoint you with his yeas & nays, at least he won't misuse public funds to commandeer a LDWF boat to go "check on his chilling c-notes" during major disasters.
At least we won't have to worry about New Orleanians voting this joke back into office. The rest of the state has an easy enough job embarassing itself without watching the electorate down there embarass us without our sayso.
Perhaps he won't disappoint us by taking money from the feds, on tape, in exchange for political favors...while being damn fool enough to actually "hope" that the feds he's taking payoffs from aren't actually feds...
I'd rather have a Democrat in office than some hypocritical joke like David Vitter.
...just as I'd rather a guy like Cao in there representing our state before I'd ever want that Dollar Bill crook back again...
Daniel,
As I responded, all your comment showed is that, arguably, *some* legislation was needed. You didn't so much as address the idea that simply extending the statute of limitations and/or adding a statutory discovery rule would be fairer and do less damage to the legal system.
The Ledbetter Act is akin to using a sledge hammer to fix a wristwatch -- you don't need to affix the statute of limitations to an irrelevant guidepost in order to cure a perceived injustice. Basic common law doctrines, if applied, could ameliorate any alleged problems (and I do say alleged, because the Fair Pay Act has a much longer statute of limitations.
Go: I don't want Dollar Bill back either. You sound as if our only choices are Cao or Jefferson. That is silly.
Owen: My most recent comment to you explains why the statute of limitations did not change. All the act does is change what is considered an offense. You still have 180 days to file a lawsuit.
I don't think you correctly have determined what the act does.
D-BB said...
E Stated the following:
"cao voted yes on HR 12, to add the paycheck fairness act onto the end of HR 11, the ledbetter act, on which cao voted no.
7 other republicans and 2 democrats voted yes on HR 12 and voted no or did not vote on HR 11.
So Cao voted yes to the law but no to enforcement of the law. Or otherwise he just wants to be able to say he voted for equal pay even though he actually sought to kill the more substantive remedy."
Please note that he did not capitalize the letter "C" when he began his comment with "Cao"
D-BB also stated: (Referencing the above quote which was attributed to commenter "E")...
"Also, the word "okay" should have been was entirely in lower case."
That makes no freakin’ sense people! That should have been: "Also, the word "okay" should have begun with an uppercase o)… (Example = "O”) however it was entirely in lower case."
I found a few more possible mistakes but further examination is required.
Please make the necessary correction in your notes and/or records.
BTW Ursta, I know you must get worn out day after day and look my friend, if you ever need a fill in to blog so you and the misses or even a mistress can sneak off a few nights and relax if you know what I mean (hubba hubba), please to not hesitate to ask me.
Daniel Z,
Yes, it changes the definition of "offense" to mean an event that itself has nothing to do with wrongful conduct. The conduct giving rise to the cause of action still occurred, potentially, at a far earlier point in time.
It is obtuse in the extreme to behave as if the chief purpose of the law wasn't to change the point at which the statute of limitations was affixed. This was all about the statute of limitations.
lart mikid
nike air max 90
nike air max 95
nike shoes
nike air
nike air shoes
nike air max tn
nike air rift
nike shox r4
sports shoes
nike air rifts
nike air rift trainer
nike air max 360
nike shox nz
puma cat
air max trainers
mens nike air max
nike air
puma mens shoes
puma shoes
puma speed
nike shoes air max
nike shoes shox
air shoes
Lucyliu IS Lucyliu
nike shoe cart
puma future
levis jeans
nike rift shoes
cheap nike air rifts
bape shoes
cheap puma
nike rift
jeans shop
diesel jeans
