Attorney General Holder: My Goals for The Department of Justice

Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden and Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli discuss the mission and history of The Department of Justice. They have a tough task ahead of them to clean up the mess the Bush Administration left behind, and restore the nation's faith in the Department of Justice.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Fabulous Obama Campaign Ad Focusing on Real Women, Real Issues

This Obama for President ad first aired during Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-AK) much anticipated appearance on Saturday Night Live last weekend. In the ad, real women talk about their distrust of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), touching on some of the most critical issues that women voters are keying in on this year -- pay equity, health care, retirement security, etc.

The ad also features Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) support for women's reproductive rights. This is particularly notable since the choice issue has more often sent Democrats running for cover -- but in an election year that is breaking all the rules, reproductive rights are back in vogue again and helping pro-choice candidates nationwide. Perhaps people are thinking about the Supreme Court -- about time.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

DC News Briefs: High Court, Lame Ducks, and Goodbye to Larry Craig

A few news updates from this gorgeous autumn day in our Nation's Capital.

Senate Shenanigans: Fulfilling my prediction from way back in January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already scheduled a lame duck session beginning Nov. 17. Senators will already be in Washington for the biennial meetings to elect party leaders and set the rules of their chambers...so the timing works.

In the meantime, beginning Monday the Senate will hold the first of a series of pro forma Senate sessions -- which means the Senate will not be going into recess. As a result, President Bush will be prevented from naming any recess appointments -- as he's been known to do.


Mr. Wide Stance Says Goodbye: Sen. Larry "I'm Not Gay" Craig (R-ID), forced out of office because of one of the more memorable sex scandals in political history, said goodbye on Thursday to a mostly empty Senate chamber. Has it really been only a year since the Idaho Republican unleashed some of the best political satire Washington has ever seen with his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting? With much less fanfare — in fact, none at all — Craig delivered his last speech to the nearly vacant Senate floor. A couple of senators troubled themselves to say nice things about his legislative record; Craig said good things about them in return -- and then it was OVER. Finally. Godspeed, Larry.


Supreme Court Begins New Term: The first Monday in October is always the first day of the new high court session. The 2008-09 term has a docket that includes cases about employment and sex discrimination, education, and others. Among the cases already accepted for review are a case where the justices will decide whether Title IX provides the exclusive legal remedy for cases of sex discrimination in public schools. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (Case No. 07-1125) is scheduled for argument Dec. 2. The court will also be hearing a case that will provide the basis for a potentially important ruling on job discrimination. The question is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects a worker from being dismissed because she cooperated with her employer’s internal investigation of alleged sexual harassment of another worker. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (No. 06-1595) will be argued Oct. 8.


Pork Barrel Spending Brings ... Presents? One of Rep. John Boehner’s (R-OH) district offices -- the one in West Chester, OH, to be exact -- was evacuated Monday after a suspicious package from Georgia arrived in the mail. After noticing it was leaking an oily substance, Boehner's staff called the Capitol Hill police in Washington, DC. The police advised the staff to evacuate as a precaution and call in local authorities. After an X-ray analysis, police investigators determined the package contained -- bacon. On a related note, Boehner voted twice last week for a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry.


House Republicans Break a Record ... for Gridlock: The Grand Old Party in the House managed to rack up a new record for the 110th Congress -- 120 motions to recommit overall during the two-year period, more than doubling the previous record of 56 set by Democrats in the 109th Congress. What is an MTR, you thoughtfully ask? Well, it's a parliamentary maneuver -- traditionally the right of the minority party -- to provide one last chance to amend or kill the bill. So yes, MTRs basically direct to House to go back to the drawing board -- and muck up the works as well. Wanna slow things down? Offer an MTR. Want to make the majority party nuts? Offer and MTR that picks off some of the majority party's members. In that vein, it is important to note that within this new gridlock record was another record -- 24 of the 120 MTRs were actually adopted, far exceeding the old record of 6 set by the 106th Congress. This means the ruling party -- the Democrats -- got beat at their own game 24 times. Yikes. Come on, Nancy, you can do better than that.


Stevens Gets Busted by ... Himself: Jurors listened Monday to a secretly recorded phone call in which Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) coaches the businessman on how to avoid an obstruction of justice charge. That same businessman paid for a major renovation of Stevens’ home. In the October 2006 phone conversation, it was clear that Stevens was aware that a grand jury was investigating his conduct. During the call, Stevens urged the businessman to forgo additional conversation and start communicating with him primarily through lawyers. Of course, little did Stevens know that Bill Allen, head of he oil services company VECO Corp., was already cooperating with federal investigators. Stevens is in a tough re-election race, and these calls, this trial -- well, let's just say Alaskans are growing increasingly weary of Uncle Ted.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Bill Maher's Religulous: In Theaters October 3rd

Anyone else concerned about the encroachment of religion into politics, especially in a country where there is supposed to be a bright line separation between church and state? Well, it looks like comedian Bill Maher has taken on the subject in his film, Religulous. Also, if you are looking for an organization that's fighting the good fight on this issue, try Americans United for the Separation of Church and State; their big project now is to stop illegal church electioneering. AU's efforts are particularly important given the Alliance Defense Fund's efforts to politicize the issue and force a court showdown over the separation of church and state. This weekend, more than 200 pastors plan to endorse candidates from the pulpit; if the IRS threatens their non-profit status as a result they have vowed to file lawsuits as part of the Pulpit Initiative. And, given how the Bush Administration has tipped the scales in the judiciary, I am more than a little nervous about the outcome of such challenges. Maybe Maher's movie -- well timed given the Pulpit Initiative's big day -- will help to stem the tide.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Just What Every Woman Needs: A Wild Cherry Steam Thing

In this critical election year, women will most likely be the deciding vote. It's quite a responsibility, really -- the direction, indeed the future of a nation rests in our hands. As such, women are more engaged than ever -- 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling don't lie; neither does the fact that pay equity is front and center this election season.

In many ways, this decision-making power rests well with women. We're comfortable with it. We have long been the primary family economic and social decision makers -- whether it's buying the family home, choosing a car, when to go to the doctor, or what laundry detergent or mustard to buy. Marketers have long known this, and therefore target women directly. Unfortunately, their advertising has not necessarily caught up with women's key roles and critical decision-making positions. Take this ad... "A woman has needs. And right now I need this wild cherry steam thing." All this shit happening in the world today, and all they think women can think about is a snappy new red washer/dryer set? Now, as you all know, I am not without humor, and I appreciate clean clothes as much as the next person -- perhaps more. But this ad is whacked. All I could think when I read it was "Huh? WTF?"


Personally, I think women have more important needs. In fact, I am quite confident we do. Let me enumerate -- for the benefit of the manufacturers of the LG steam washer and dryer and their marketing "gurus" -- just a few of the things that I need, in no particular order.

1) Got equal pay? Um, no. Well, women did just get a one cent raise -- the average went from 77 cents on the male dollar to 78 cents. Woo Hoo. So let's start there -- pay us fairly, and I can buy your fancy appliances.

2) How about a fair and balanced judiciary? So the precious few civil rights and liberties women do have are protected. And so when I sue your ass for sexual harassment and pay discrimination, I have a better than 5 percent chance of winning -- which are the current odds, by the way.

3) While I'm on the subject of the judiciary, hands off my reproductive rights, okay? And let's make them real -- ensure docs are trained in abortion techniques and women's health; make sure hospitals have to offer emergency contraception (even the Catholic hospitals); ensure Rx drug plans cover birth control, especially if they cover Viagra; teach comprehensive, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education in our schools; repeal the global gag rule and increase national and international family planning funding. Course, the more kids I have the more I'm gonna want your fancy washing machine, I guess.

4) How about a basic guarantee of paid family and medical leave, and paid sick days while I'm at it. Yes, we have a federal FMLA law now, but lots of folks don't take advantage of the protections because it's unpaid. If you work in a job with no vacation or paid sick time, then you're shit outta luck. This country's work/family policies are the joke of the developed world -- hell, lots of "underdeveloped" countries do better than we do. Gimme some time off, and I can do my laundry in your super dupper machines.

5) Can you say health care? I knew you could. We need comprehensive, universal, affordable, high quality health care. End of story. 'Nuf said.

6) How about the best public schools on the planet? And affordable colleges so that everyone can explore and reach their full potential. This isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do -- it's about global competitiveness and national security. You want smart workers who can build your washing machines? Then we need to do a lot better by our K-12 system and make college more accessible. Oh, wait, you probably outsourced those factory jobs overseas, didn't you? Made in China? Or maybe you just outsourced your advertising efforts -- which would explain your piss-poor ability to relate to American women in this particular ad.

7) Stop violence against women and children -- rape, incest, domestic violence. We need better enforcement of current laws, more funding for prevention and victim support programs, and fundamental social change that tips in favor of simply not tolerating this crap. Can your washing machine, which you seem to think is what women really long for, take care of that problem, please?

8) I hope your cherry red washer/dryer set is energy efficient, 'cuz our environment is in a world of hurt. We need more research and federal support for alternative energy sources, more recycling, environmental education in the schools, better public transportation, etc.


Okay, so I'm on a rant, but damn! These ridiculous ads make me a little crazy. So tell me, what do you really need this election season? Do tell....


Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Something Clinton and Obama (and their supporters) Can Agree On: Fair Pay

In an unusual show of good timing, this week -- the week of Equal Pay Day -- the Senate takes up the House-passed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). It's only been sitting at the desk since July 2007, but better late than never. They'll debate the bipartisan bill, and the make-or-break cloture vote is scheduled for Wednesday (4/23) afternoon -- hopefully at a time when both Clinton and Obama, both original sponsors of the legislation, can get back to town for the critical vote. This civil rights legislation corrects one of the latest missteps of the Roberts Supreme Court – this one coming last May via their controversial split decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

Color me surprised – the Court’s new majority got it wrong? You mean, they took the first available opportunity to turn a decades old civil rights law on its head? Gee, whoda thunk? (Sorry, I’m still a bit bitter after fighting so hard against the Bush nominees -- only to see the Senate Dems roll over and play dead.) Now, we all get to reap what President Bush and the Senate Democrats have sown by putting Roberts and Alito on the bench for life -- and we're faced with the cheery prospect of cleaning up the mess, decision by decision.

But I digress. Here’s the gist about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. For more than 40 years, the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have followed the same precedents and policies when interpreting the statute of limitations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This practice became known as the paycheck accrual rule, and is the simple principle that each paycheck – itself tainted by a prior discriminatory pay decision – is in and of itself another discriminatory act. Thus, a tainted paycheck can restart Title VII’s 180 day clock.

But last spring, the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision turned decades of legal precedent on its head and created a new standard: if an employee doesn’t know they’re being discriminated against in the first 180 days, and doesn’t file a pay discrimination claim in that period, then they’re shit outta luck – and the employer is forever immunized from any responsibility for that discriminatory pay decision. Yes, you read that right. The employer can then knowingly – even openly -- continue to pay the employer a less than fair wage, because the 180-day charge period has passed without the employee finding out and filing a charge about the inequitable pay decision. Welcome to civil rights on the Roberts Court.

This new, impractical standard makes it almost impossible for workers to seek justice for pay discrimination. Why? Think about it. The first six months on the job, most folks don’t exactly hang around the water cooler asking their co-workers the intimate details of their pay stubs. It often takes time for this kind of insidious discrimination to make itself known – particularly since so many employers still tell employees they're not allowed to discuss wage issues at work.

That’s exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. She worked for Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama, as a shift supervisor. Not long before she retired, Lilly discovered that all the other shift supervisors – all male, most of whom hadn’t worked there nearly as long as she had – were making a lot more money than she was. Her bosses wouldn’t talk to her about it, so on her first day off she went to the nearest EEOC office in Montgomery, and filed a claim. It progressed painfully from there – such lawsuits are never a cakewalk – but the system as it was then worked for Lilly. A jury of her peers in that company town decided Lilly had been discriminated against, and awarded her two years back pay (the limit under the statute) and a large punitive award, which was immediately reduced to $300,000 – the statutory cap for sex-based discrimination under Title VII. Lilly was vindicated.

But wait. Goodyear decided to appeal – oh, not based on the facts of the case. They admitted the discrimination – 20 years worth. Goodyear simply said Lilly Ledbetter had filed her claim too late, and thus had no recourse whatsoever -- tough luck. No matter that Goodyear forbade Lilly and the rest of its employees to talk about their salaries. No matter that Lilly worked for over 20 years before she first discovered the inequities that had begun decades before -- via an anonymous note in her mailbox, of all things.

The purpose of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is to correct the Supreme Court’s blunder in Ledbetter, and return to the earlier, long established practices in employment law. This is, in fact, what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked Congress to do in her stinging dissent in Ledbetter -- a dissent she felt compelled to read from the bench to the Court, an unusual action that is a telling barometer of her ire. Critics such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business are throwing around all kinds of distortions, and lobby hard to block the bill. This despite the fact that the paycheck accrual rule wasn't something business groups were clamoring to change prior to Ledbetter. In fact, the issue wasn't even on their radar screen -- the precedent was that established -- but now they don't want to let this unexpectedly juicy plum go.

But don’t let anyone fool you. This bill is a reasonable, narrow fix. Truthfully, advocates could have gone after a bigger bite of the apple – we could have asked for language to increase the 2-year limit on back pay, for example, or to lift the caps on punitive damages. But when you're working in an environment where the Senate has become the place where all good bills go to die -- where it's 60 or bust -- advocates chose to literally just go after a bill that simply turns back the clock. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a time warp of sorts, taking us back to the practices and precedents as they were the day before the Ledbetter decision – no more, no less.

The vote also provides a good gauge of a legislator's position on pay equity issues this election year -- a year when several moderates are running scared of being scored on such votes. A year when pay equity is a top priority for women voters. This issue also is yet another illustration of the importance of judicial nominations and getting a Democrat into the White House. Advocates and Democrats are pretty close to getting the 60 votes we need to move to a final vote on the bill -- close enough to make the Republicans sweat. But it's touch and go, and several moderate and independent-minded Republicans are up for grabs. Also, more conservative Democrats always need shoring up.

What can you do? Take a moment and call your senators. Urge them to vote yes on the Ledbetter cloture vote, and yes on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). Call this toll-free number (866-338-1015) to get the Capitol Hill operator, and you can ask for a senator's office. And then, speak your mind for pay equity – it’s Equal Pay Day (4/22), and there's no better day to do it.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Independents, Don't be Fooled: McCain is NOT a Moderate

John McCain is in many ways an admirable man. He's a war hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton with his dignity intact, and has served his country through the armed forces and in elected office. On some key issues, like campaign finance reform and immigration, he has tried to work across the aisle to seek a workable compromise. He prides himself on being a straight shooter, telling you what he thinks whether you like the taste of the medicine or not -- and a few times after he subverted his straight-talking instincts (like the confederate flag issue in South Carolina a few years ago), he has even righted his course and admitted his politically-induced lip service. And he has been blunt and unwavering in his disdain for U.S.-government-sanctioned torture, not hiding his deep disappointment that the United States has sunk to that new low. All of these things make for a good public servant and a good politician. As I said, John McCain is an admirable man. However, he is absolutely, postively, NOT moderate in his politics -- not even a little bit. And we'd all do well to remember that when we consider the kind of president he would make -- especially you independents.

I know some of you would like to believe otherwise, especially since both of our Democratic candidates have managed to make themselves look pretty unattractive of late (though they were better in tonight's debate). And now that McCain seems to have a good head of steam -- even the beginnings of an aura of inevitablity -- you might be looking at him seriously for the first time, all over again. But don't let the endorsements of the New York Times, Rudy Guiliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger fool you. Remember that McCain also has the hearty support of such stauch social conservatives as Govs. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rick Perry (R-TX), fellow senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and and Tom Coburn (R-OK), and former senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). And for god's sake, don't put any credence in the endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); in fact, that should give you pause. The allegiance of a turncoat is not a valuable statement, nor can it be trusted.

Just take a look at McCain's voting record on progressive issues, on social issues, on labor issues, on education issues, on women's issues. In the 109th Congress, he had a 20% voting record with the American Association of University Women, getting credit for a vocational education vote that went through 99-0. In 2006, McCain had a 7% voting record with the AFL-CIO, having only voted the right way on the Voting Rights Act -- another popular measure that went through largely unopposed. That same year he received a 15% rating from Americans for Democratic Action. There are more voting records on the Zaftig Redhead's main page, where you can guage McCain's support on issues you care about. Take a look, but even on the issues where you might be reassured -- like his vote against the marriage amendment last year -- don't count on the fact that his position will stay firm now that he's got Pennsylvania Avenue on his mind.

Remember that immigration compromise he worked on earlier? McCain is now back-pedaling from that bill -- which he co-authored -- as quickly and as publicly as he can. In truth, he may be one of the bigger flip floppers in the campaign, having seen the error of his ways in 2000 when he had the gumption to skip Iowa and diss the evangelical, conservative block in the Republican party. As a result, on issues like gay marriage to making the Bush tax cuts permanent to repealing Roe v. Wade -- McCain has changed his mind, pandering to the religious right since his speech at Bob Jones University, and even more so the closer he got to the nomination.

On other critical issues, like judicial nominations, healthcare, student aid, broader reproductive rights, pay equity issues and the minimum wage, McCain has been distressingly, depressingly, consistently conservative. This, despite always being a target of the civil rights community as a potential swing vote on the issues that matter most, McCain rarely comes through -- in 2007, only about 15% of the time.

So let's just be clear. Despite whatever appeal he may have as a person, whatever we might rightly admire in his life story and character, no matter how much we might like to have a beer with the man, McCain is a conservative. Indeed, he keeps saying so himself -- over and over and over again, in every Republican debate this campaign season. We should take him at his word on this one, folks. On the issues that matter most to progressives -- from civil rights to reproductive rights, from domestic budget priorities to his selections for the U.S. Supreme Court -- he will be a socially and fiscally conservative president. (NOTE: I do not believe that fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative are the same thing; they are, in fact, very different things.) McCain is not, in fact, all that much different from President Bush in his social positions -- just as McCain is not all that different from the president on Iraq. I don't mean to imply McCain would be anything like the unprincipled leader we have now. But I do believe John McCain would be a consistent president -- consistently conservative. Please, happy voters, don't be fooled -- not if you truly want change this election season.