The "liar" , of course, is Gloria Borger.  The Liar Network is CNN.  I have no basis upon which to call Lilly Ledbetter a liar, as her personal "story" has been lost in the overblown HYPE that has no surrounded the "Lilly Ledbetter case" in MYTH and FANTASY. 


Gloria Borger, on the other hand, is a sociopathic liear (when she is not simply too stulpid to know what the "truth" is), on a network (The Liar Network) with an agenda. This all goes back to that "conversation" on CNN--about Mitt Romney and women--that I have been discussing in blog articles for a week or so:  the same, disgraceful "panel discussion" where President Obama was designated The First Female President (a consolation prize, since h can't be The First Black President:  an honor the media has previusly awarded to BillClinton).


In this "panel discussion"--part of the CNN "storyline" that Mitt Romney has a problem with women voters, despite that mainstream media poll "showing" that Romney is 3 percent AHEAD of Obama with women, Gloria Borger somehow got around to discussing the HYPE surrounding this "war on women" that Obama, leftist Democrats and the media are conducting.  Do you doubt that women are the DESIGNATED TARGET for Obama supporters for the next election (which, really, should INSULT women with the idea that they SHOULD votge differently than men; that they can be BRIBED and patronized with excessive hype; and that they DO NOT CARE about what happens to their husbands, fathers and children so long as politicians give THEM "free" contraception). Borger, in passing, pushed this Orwellian Big Lie, which is the "accepted" MYTH of Lilly Ledbetter:  "I don't want to minimize the Lilly Ledbetter law, which was all about the seriuous matter of pay equity." l Gloria Borger, you are a LIAR who knows nothing but leftist t"talking points". 


Lilly Ledbetter was not really about "pay equity". The Lilly Ledbetter law did NOT give ONE SINGLE WOMAN the "right' to pay equity that she did not already have.  "Equal pay for equal work" has been the LAEW for teh 30 years I was a PRACTICING attorney in Texas. How many JURY VERDICTS did Gloria Borger ever get in a case involving sex discriminationi?  I can still remember at least one I got, when I sued Continental Airlines for a steardess ("flight attendant") I represented, and won.  Okay.  The "Lilly Ledbetter case," sespite the PROPAGANDA of the media, and the rest of the LEFT, was NOT about the LAW ON PAY EQUITY.  What, then, was it about?


It was about LEGAL PROCEDURE.  There is something called the "statute of limitations", about which you may have heard, based on the idea that even VALID CLAIMS have to be brought wihin a certain time, or be BARRED.  Basically ALL civil clai ms have a statute of limitations, since it is absurd for the legal system to try to deal with STALE claims long after the facts are lost in the mists of time.  Further, is it FAIR to have a defendant skued, say, TEN YEARS afte the "facts" supposedly giving rise to the lawsuit?  Obviusly not. People should have to asssert their rights in a relatively timely manner, or else lose them.  But there is a TENSION here.  What about the cae where a person DOES NOT UNDERSTAND his or her "right to sue", and may not even be aware of the facts giving thkle person a case? The "statute of limitatins" necessriay means that VALID CLAIMS are BARRED, if not brought in a timely manner (even though one of the reasons for a statute of limitatins is that it is almost impossible to determine what IS a "valid claim" once years have passed).  Now this kind of thing does not bother our EVIL MEDIA< who are perfectly willing to bring up a hazy event of "bullying" by Mitt Romney FIFTY YEARS AGO.  But our media is composed of EVIL PEOLE SPREADING EVIL ("journalists" being now worse thatn the WORST of the old-time, back fence gossips).  This kind of thing, however, still bothers our legal system, which has not yet adopted the EHEORETICAL unfairness long since adopted by our media. Our legal system may be unfair in PRACTICE a fair amount of the time, but it is only "journalists" who do not even care aobut teh CONCEPT of "fairness".  I digress (not really, as this article is about GLORIA BORGER, LIAR, and the total disrespect of "juornalists" for the truth). 


Well, what abut the "unfairness" of a person who does not even have any means of KNOWING that the person has a lawsuit?  This has resulted in many exceptions to the statute of limitatins, such as when cancer occurs decades after wrongful exposure to something like asbestos, where a "strict ' interpretation of the statute of limitatins might bar 'just" claims that "victims" had no way of nowing that they even had.  This has resulted in the court-made "discovery rule", and sometimes legislation, letting claims be made many decades after the wrongful conduct has occurred. This also exposes the TENSION of comopeting principles here.  Look at what happened in the asbestos litigation.  The massive, CUMULATIVE legal liability of comapnies, over MANY DECADES, BANKRUPTED many large companies.  This hurt many SHARFEHOLDERS and WORKERS, even if you (with justice) believe that the companies DESERVED what they got (or, at least, the original wrongdoers did).  It is certainly hard to argue taht a victim of asbestos-caused cancer shuld have NO REMEMBDY, just because there is no way of knowing that the INJURY has occurred until DECADES later.  What does this have to do with Lillly Ledbetter?  Everything. 


Lilly Ledbetter learned, MANY LYERS AFTER THE ALLEGED WRONG WAS DONE TO HER, that she hd been receiving less money than  males doing the same job.  At least, that was the allegatin.  Remember, the LAW is, and was, that Lilly Ledbetter was entitled to "equla pay for equal work" with similarly "qualified" males. There is, and was, no dispute about that.  But what abut a claim for DAMAGES for "pay discrimination" occurring MANY YERS in the past (and maybe continuing for many years, leading to an ENORMOUS possible "ticking bomb" for empoyers from a FIRED employee decades after the alleged wrongful act first occurred).  What about the statute of limitations: the limitatins put in the Congressional Act as to when a calim is supposed to be brought (aplication of which time limit would bar all, or at least a major part of, the claim of Lilly Ledbetter)?  Well, this issue of Congressional I"INTENT" went to the United States Supreme Curt.  The "issue" was basically when the statute of limitiatins began to "run":  when the wronggul act occurred, or when the "victim" had KNOWLEDGE (or at least a reasonable means of knowing) when the wrongul act had occurred.  Yu ca make an 'equity" case both ways.  Yu think that there is NO "equity" case in favor of the employer?  Think again.  Wy should an emplyer face CONTINGENT LIABILITIES decades after the fact from disgruntled employees who lose their job and look around for a "deep pocket" to make up for it?  On "equity" grounds, this is a pretty close question: fully raising the TENSION between the policy reasons for having a statute of limitations, and the unfairness of losing a "valid" claim that you never knew you had.  This is totally a matter of statutory interpretation, although a court has to fall back on general principles if Congress did not make its itent crystal clear (arguably the case in the Lilly Ledbetter matter).   Yuo say that the Lilly Ledbetter matter was so BACTUALLY unfair, and ush an "obivus" case of pay discrimination, that the Supreme Court shuld have leaned over backward to make sure she could bring her claim?  That is jsut it.  The Supreme Court of the Untied States is NOT THERE to look at individual cases and determine who has "justice" on their side.  The Supreme Cuort is there to take cases taht SET DIRECTIN for the lower curts, and sometimes the natin.  If the case was just about Lilly Ledbetter, the Supreme Court probably had no business hearing the case at all. But SOMONE had to detmine exaclty when the statute of limitaitns would start to ru in various TYPES of cases.


The Supreme Court looked at what Congress had written, and precedent, and determined that Lilly Ledbetter's claim was BARRED by the statute of limitatins, whether it had any merit or not.  There was the usual "outcry" from people who said that the Supreme Curt had said that women shuld not get 'equal pay for equal work":  LIARS like Gloria Oborger.  That was simply not ture. In fact, it is UNCLEAR how many women, if any, have "benefitted" from the new Lilly Ledbetter law. Yep.  Congress--faced with this PROPAGANDA about how the entire concept of equal pay for women had been undermined by this decision--passed a law REVERSING THE SUPREME COURT.  Congress can do this on a matter of STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, although Congres cannot do this (absent a Constitutional Amendment) in a case the Supreme Court decides based ont he Constitution. 


Again, has this resultedd in ONE SINGLE WOMAN receiving "equl pay", who was not previusly doing so?  Possibly, but almost certainly not many.  Just how OFTEN does a womnan really find out that she was OBVIUSLYL receiving less money than her male co-workers many years after the fact?  What this law surely does is ENCOURAGE LITIGATION by employeses with a GRIEVANCE aganst their emplyoer: employees who LOOK AROUND for some EXCUSE to sue their emplyers based on a grievance that may have little or nothing to do wtih "pay equity".  To be fair, this is really a pretty close question.  There is certainly a strong case taht an emplyer sould nto be able to HIDE pay discriminatin from women emplyees, and then rely upn the statute of limitations.  Exaclty how did Congress address the COMPETING "equities" of encouraging lawsuits long after the fact, and discouraging emplyers from "offensive" reliance on the statute of limitations to avoid valid claims  I doon't know.  And the media is UNINTERESTED in this kind of INFORMATION.  The media is only interested in LIES and PROPAGANDA< such as the Gloria Borger LIE that the Lilly Ledbetter law is all about 'pay equity".  "Pay equity" has lONG been the lLAW.  The quesitn is the COMPETING POLICY CONSIDERATINS involved in the statute of limitations.  Sure, may be the Supreme Court misinterpreted Congressional intent as to the time limits set for this kind of claim. Bu, again, HOW OFTEN does a woman employee actaully "find out" about obvius "pay discrimination" long after th efact?  I was IN THE BUSINESS.  I can assure you that this is BACKWARDS.  Waht usually happens is that an emplyee thinks that she has been treated UNFAIRLY, and goes to a lwayer to see if there is anything that can be done.  The lawyer tells her that there sis NO CASE (in most states, and under Federal Law) based merely on UNFAIRNESS.  You have to come oup with a claim based on DISCRIMINATION (or some other recognied legal theory, rather than jsut "unfairness"). THEN the emplyee will think about--and maybe look into--whehter she can coeme up with a case based on DISCRIMINATION (such as "pay equity").    Again, this i more about LITIGATION than it is about women receiving equal pay for equal work.  Do you really think that MANY emplyers DELIBERATELY vilate the "pay equity" law that has been in effect so many  years? 


Bottom line:  Something lie the Lilly Ledbetter law may have been indicated, but I assure you that it AFFECTED VERY FEW WOMEN.  And there is no doubt that this kind of thing (lawsuits well after the fact) is a BURDEN on American business. As a TRIAL LAWYER (mainy on the Plaintiffs' side) in my former life, I have a lot of sympathy for plaintiffs and plaintiffs' lawyers.  Peopele SHULD be able to got to court for "justice".  But I am not blind to the competing consieratins here, and to the FACT that the Lilly Ledbetter law did LITTLE or NOTHING for women in gneral.  To the extent it 'hrut" MALE emplyees (such as by "encouraging" emplyers to simply not take the risk of women who are fired takng legal actin, and therefore look to fire more men), then women whose interests are tied to the MALE emplyees (wives, girlfriends, etc.) are actually HURT.  That is why these things should NOT be "decided" based on PROPAGANDA and LIES< but on the merits of the "isssue". Here the "issue' is he STATUTE OF LIMITATINS, and the ractival roblem of litigation long after the fact, and NOT the "issue' of PY EQUITY. 


Gloria Obrger, of course, as well as ALL of CNN, have no idea of what the real issue is here.  Al they know is the 'storyline".  The "lilly Ledbetter Law" has now been law for some time.  Just how much has it HELPED women in general?  You hadn't noticed?  Well, neither has CNN.  Neither have I.  The law has probably had NO material effect on women in the workplace, in general. SOME litigius women may have "benefitted".  A FEW "eserving" women may have benefittted.  Emplyers may have a "new owrry" that they have to somehow figure in their ideas of possible contingent liabiity.  I would guess that NO employer has suddenty said;  "Gee, we can't get away with paying women less than the the man with the SAME qualificatins enxt to here anymore, like we used to, because hiding the discriminatin just won't work anymore.'. Nope.  That just does not happen.  In other words, this waws a MNOR "issue" HYPED for political reasons, which has NOTHING to do with the overall status of women in the workplace. 


P.S  No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight).