Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FAIR PAY ACT PASSES HOUSE. Congress today voted 225-199 to overturn the Supreme Court's May ruling that all claims of pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days of the first pay check at a new salary. The House bill reverts to the accepted interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, in which each pay check is a separate act that can serve as the basis of a discrimination claim.
Bush has sworn to veto the bill, so stay tuned.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (18)
But with that vote total, it look like the House could override Bush's veto. Wouldn't that be something?
Posted by: TheCraig | July 31, 2007 3:51 PM
According to the house clerk website, the vote was 225 to 199.
Posted by: Dan the Man | July 31, 2007 3:57 PM
Where are the rest of the votes? There are about 80 missing- were they absent, or voting "present" but inclined to vote one way or another on an override?
Posted by: SP | July 31, 2007 3:58 PM
It's incorrect to describe this as "Congress overturning the Supreme Court's ruling." Legislatures never "overturn" court decisions.
The Court interpreted the statute as written; Congress is now attempting to amend the statute. No big deal.
If anything, the blame belongs with Congress for passing a sloppy law in the first place.
(I take no position on the veto threat.)
Posted by: KipEsquire | July 31, 2007 4:03 PM
"The House bill reverts to the accepted interpretation of the Civil Rights Act."
"Accepted" by who? Tapped writers?
Posted by: sunbeltjerry | July 31, 2007 4:19 PM
But with that vote total, it look like the House could override Bush's veto. Wouldn't that be something?
If any of this got much media play, it would at least look good to have the House do its part in overriding a veto. However,
(1) This will probably be filibustered by the usual Republican asswipes in the Senate,
(2) If it somehow isn't filibustered, it still would never make it to 67 votes after a veto.
I mean, seriously, it's their guys on the SCOTUS that egregiously crapped all over the plainest intent of the relevant statutes to begin with, and their guy who's threatening a veto. Who are these paragons who will break ranks to override? The same band of morally bankrupt little fucks that have been filibustering forming a conference committee for the lobbying reform bill that passed the Senate 96-2?
Posted by: mds | July 31, 2007 4:23 PM
How did the Senate vote?
Posted by: Rich | July 31, 2007 4:24 PM
As to TheCraig's comment, no, a 225-199 vote is NOT a veto proof majority. It takes a 2/3 vote to override a veto.
As to SP's comment, there are NOT 80 or so votes missing. There are 435 members of the U.S. House. It looks as though one representative did not vote.
Posted by: scd2 | July 31, 2007 4:27 PM
""Accepted" by who? Tapped writers?"
Accepted by every federal court that looked at the issue until the Supreme Court decided to take the case, and by the EEOC -- the federal agency charged with enforcing this law. In fact, it appears the only people who don't accept it are the President, a minority of the Congress, and five members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Which, I grant you, means that it is the law of the land unless and until Congress changes it either with or without a Presidential signature.
Posted by: twc | July 31, 2007 4:30 PM
Egads! It would help if I could do basic math. It looks as though 11 representatives did not vote.
Posted by: scd2 | July 31, 2007 4:31 PM
"Accepted" by who? Tapped writers?
By every court up until Seizure Boy's five-pack got to it?
Posted by: ahem | July 31, 2007 4:31 PM
I'm old enough to remember when a single person overruled the will of the legislature, they were called "activist judges".
But, then again, so is my one year old.
Posted by: chris coda | July 31, 2007 4:34 PM
What in the world is Bush's (professed) motivation for vetoing this? Why did 199 congressmen vote against this? What the fuck is wrong with the Republican party?
Posted by: John | July 31, 2007 4:35 PM
That total is not enough to override. The House needs 290 -- and you'd need 67 votes in the Senate.
Posted by: twc | July 31, 2007 4:35 PM
That total is not enough to override. The House needs 290 -- and you'd need 67 votes in the Senate.
Posted by: twc | July 31, 2007 4:35 PM
"What in the world is Bush's (professed) motivation for vetoing this? Why did 199 congressmen vote against this? What the fuck is wrong with the Republican party?"
One simple answaer for all three questions:
The Republican party always votes to protect their wealthy and powerful corporate sponsors whose bottom line might be threatened by having to obey the intent of civil rights laws.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 4:50 PM
Sorry. Didn't mean to be anonymous.......
"What in the world is Bush's (professed) motivation for vetoing this? Why did 199 congressmen vote against this? What the fuck is wrong with the Republican party?"
One simple answaer for all three questions:
The Republican party always votes to protect their wealthy and powerful corporate sponsors whose bottom line might be threatened by having to obey the intent of civil rights laws.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 04:50 PM
Posted by: victoid | July 31, 2007 4:54 PM
"I'm old enough to remember when a single person overruled the will of the legislature, they were called "activist judges".
... Posted by: chris coda"
More than one person. A majority of whichever court struck down a measure.
It's called judicial review and it's (thankfully) been with us since Marbury v. Madison.
What's 'interesting' about all the right wing whining that took place for so many years is that now that they have a majority on SCOTUS (and most of the circuits I believe), they're OK with it.
Hypocrites.
Posted by: cal1942 | July 31, 2007 11:44 PM