In paul's blog post, Why lilly ledbetter should quit while she's behind, he mentions Democrats using Lilly ledbetter's case to attack the Roberts court. Lilly Ledbetter's case was that in 1992, she received a note that shows her pay along with three other male co-workers with the same occupation. She didn't file to the EEOC for pay discrimination until she stopped working in 1998. The jury ruled in favor of Ledbetter but the court ruled against her because "she failed timely to challenge." The libral Democrats tried to resurrect the case in an attempt to use it against the court. Ledbetter re-testified with a different story. She didn't know about the pay discrimination until much later in 1998. Posted in here, Lilly Ledbetter, living a lie.
The author, Paul, intended his audience to be Conservatives against lies and corruption. He used strong language when referring to Ledbetter and her Democratic representatives. She change her story so that it could be of use. He wanted to inform people of the case stating facts from the case. He did not mention much about Ledbetter's side or about Senator Leahy, Democratic helping Ledbetter. His opinions are extremely biased but the facts are up against Ledbetter and makes sense. He has a lot of political knowledge and is very creditable. He is an attorney in Wahington, D.C. and he is a graduate of Standford law School. I would have to agree with him because the facts are againist Ledbetter. Lies have no place in many place, especially in the supreme court. It makes sense, people have no case when it is back up with lies. Even more so, when the opposing party know that she is committing fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment