Mike Castle is John Boehner’s Bitch

Filed in Delaware by on January 9, 2009

Mike Castle does not represent Delaware. This isn’t news to many of you that read this blog, but it needs to be said over and over again so the Democrats can put someone up against Castle and beat him.

Castle voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The bill passed but that’s not the point. Republican Mike Castle does not believe a woman who has been denied equal pay can sue for compensatory and punitive damages.

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) said in a statement, “Equal pay is more than just economics, it about basic fairness. Lilly Ledbetter was shortchanged – shortchanged by her employer, the perpetrator of consistent pay discrimination lasting years; and shortchanged again, by the Supreme Court. This ruling essentially left women facing gender discrimination with little remedy. While Lilly Ledbetter will not receive the pay she deserves, this Congress is making certain that others do not lose their right to fight pay discrimination.”

Email Mike Castle and let him know that he needs to start representing Delaware, not John Boehner.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A Dad, a husband and a data guru

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. FSP says:
    January 9, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    “The bill passed but that’s not the point. Republican Mike Castle does not believe a woman who has been denied equal pay can sue for compensatory and punitive damages.”

    Actually, I imagine he believes that a woman already has recourse under the Equal Pay Act, recourse Lily Ledbetter could have pursued and actually ended up with compensation.

    The bill was passed to help enrich trial lawyers. Nothing more.

    I will give the Dems credit though. I know they were tempted to throw out the limitations altogether.

  2. Unstable Isotope says:
    January 9, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    Lilly Ledbetter did pursue compensation and she won time and again, until SCOTUS changed the interpretation of the law. The bill is meant to close this loophole that didn’t exist. Congress wants there to be no question what the intention of the bill is. I think they should throw out any statute of limitations.

  3. R Smitty says:
    January 9, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Wait, why does this post say it’s by Nemski? That has to be a mistake. I know that Jason wrote this.

  4. nemski says:
    January 9, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    UI, Dave is just following the talking points blindly. Either that he doesn’t believe that a woman should be able to sue for just compensation. I’m hoping it’s the first.

  5. Unstable Isotope says:
    January 9, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Republicans think the only people that are discriminated against are white Christian men.

  6. liz says:
    January 10, 2009 at 12:11 am

    The truth: Castle is Boehners bitch.

  7. Tom S. says:
    January 10, 2009 at 3:15 am

    “Castle voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The bill passed but that’s not the point. Republican Mike Castle does not believe a woman who has been denied equal pay can sue for compensatory and punitive damages.”

    Thats not what the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Adt of 2009 does and you know it.

  8. FSP says:
    January 10, 2009 at 8:15 am

    I love that when you can’t argue against something then you use the “talking points” line. Why not just say “I give up?” It would be a lot more clear for your readers.

  9. nemski says:
    January 10, 2009 at 8:21 am

    Tom S wrote Thats not what the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Adt of 2009 does and you know it.

    This is long, but stay with me.

    HR 11

    To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

    To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

    Congress finds the following:

    (1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have been bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of Congress.

    (2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.

    (3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an aggrieved person’s right to introduce evidence of an unlawful employment practice that has occurred outside the time for filing a charge of discrimination.

    (4) Nothing in this Act is intended to change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.

  10. nemski says:
    January 10, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Dave wrote I love that when you can’t argue against something then you use the “talking points” line. Why not just say “I give up?” It would be a lot more clear for your readers.

    You have absolutely no idea about this bill. None. Nada. Zip. You’re completely wrong about this bill.

  11. FSP says:
    January 10, 2009 at 8:48 am

    How?

  12. nemski says:
    January 10, 2009 at 8:57 am

    Dave wrote How?.

    Let’s start at the beginning.

    Dave wrote:

    Actually, I imagine he believes that a woman already has recourse under the Equal Pay Act, recourse Lily Ledbetter could have pursued and actually ended up with compensation.

    The bill was passed to help enrich trial lawyers. Nothing more.

    Unstable Isotope responded with:

    Lilly Ledbetter did pursue compensation and she won time and again, until SCOTUS changed the interpretation of the law. The bill is meant to close this loophole that didn’t exist. Congress wants there to be no question what the intention of the bill is.

    That’s how you are wrong.

  13. jason330 says:
    January 10, 2009 at 9:18 am

    pwnd again dave.

    My advice: Just get back in bed.

  14. FSP says:
    January 10, 2009 at 10:15 am

    But the bill didn’t close a loophole. It extended the statute of limitations, so that trial lawyers could pursue a more lucrative option to line their pockets.

    Pwnd my ass.

    Jason, unfortunately, unlike you, I don’t have the option of going back to bed.

  15. Mike Protack says:
    January 10, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Mr. Castle much to the chagrin of many Republicans belongs to no one, he votes his mind and heart.

    There has been federal law for almost 50 years to guarantee equal pay for equal work. You would think with the Dems in power in Congress the majority of that time and with Presidents almost half that period this issue would not exist.

    Very simple, seeking back pay is valid and so is equal pay. I have fought at work to have a back pay situation corrected with interest after my employer was wrong. I did not seek damages.

    Here we go making a new law when old laws are not enforced.

«
»