I wrote to Ed Rendell a few weeks ago to remind him of his ill-considered support of Samuel Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court and the cost that appointment would have for "regular" people and particularly women. Last time the issue was women's health and their right to control the kinds of medical treatments they can receive. Well, Judge Sam is at it again. This time he's imposing his right-wing, theology-based politics to women's rights in the workplace:

Snipped from today's Progress Report :

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits "employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin." But unfortunately, inequality still exists, and this week, the Supreme Court sided in favor of discrimination by stripping the civil rights law of "much of its potency." On Tuesday, the Court voted 5-4 to "throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts." Writing for the all-male majority, Justice Samuel Alito "forced an unreasonable reading on the law, and tossed aside longstanding precedents to rule in favor of an Alabama employer." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the unusual step of reading her dissent aloud from the bench, making clear that "the majority [was] not only mistaken, but profoundly wrong." Discrimination is not "long past," as the majority tried to argue in this case. Women continue to make just 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid. As the New York Times noted, "The ruling is the latest indication that a court that once proudly stood up for the disadvantaged is increasingly protective of the powerful."

I hope he's learned his lesson and will keep his nose out of the Senate's constitutional responsibilities going forward.

Use the "ContactLawmakers" block at left to send your own note to Ed.