Next Monday, they’ll rule on how tightly their feet should be bound
Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 by August J. PollakLots of commentary from Pandagon and TAPPED on yesterday’s beyond-absurd Supreme Court ruling that, essentially, declared it perfectly alright for companies to pay women less as long as they get away with it for the first six months. In a stunning two-fer, Alito once again writes a majority that by saying the problem is the employee’s lack of filing a complaint in the alloted time, not that the complaint isn’t valid (it was), suddenly makes this the woman’s fault.
A lot of bloggers, not just feminist-issue ones, have been pointing this out, and it’s something others (especially Democratic candidates) need to start understanding and talking about better: the Roberts majority isn’t just anti-abortion. It’s anti-women. And the sooner liberals and progressives start telling moderate and even conservative women that even if they don’t like abortion, these people also want your daughters to not get the same pay, not get the same education, not have the same chance to play sports or even try and have the same jobs, the better. Because even if a mother thinks abortion is wrong, I doubt there are many mothers who think a judge has the right the tell them their daughter isn’t allowed to do something because she’s a girl.
And Atrios is completely right as well. I find it hard to believe slipping in a provision that fixes this in a major bill will cause right-wingers to try and scuttle it, but I’m even more doubtful that if it’s phrased in the form of “not letting there be time limits on getting equal pay for equal work” opinions on it will lean in opposition. Democrats control both houses of Congress. If their ability to correct this absurdity isn’t the very definition of “checks and balances,” I’m not sure what is.













