Why do people keep insisting that the anti-discrimination legislation signed today was already on the books?

The Supreme Court held that under the previous law, and employee could only sue for wage discrimination within 180 days of employment.



Congress passed the law to expressly overrule the Supreme Court's holding, and give people the right to sue within 180 days of the time the discrimination is discovered.



How stupid do you have to be to think the new law is the same as the old one? Can't you see the difference?Why do people keep insisting that the anti-discrimination legislation signed today was already on the books?
I think that they were told to say that鈥?maybe Rush, Hannity, someone. People don鈥檛 think for themselves. President Barack Obama signed a new pay-equity measure into law Thursday, effectively overturning a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it harder to sue for pay discrimination. How do you sign a bill that鈥檚 already in place.



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/29/o鈥?/a>
The new law was enacted because Congress felt the Supreme Court misinterpreted existing law. Thus, the new law is a clarification, not a change.Why do people keep insisting that the anti-discrimination legislation signed today was already on the books?
Michael, some people are inherently stupid. Especially when they aren't the women running single parent families working their butts off only to paid less than their male counterparts. There are people in this country who believe the Equal Rights Amendment is law and have no idea it was never ratified. I'm hoping that will change during his Administration as well. It's a great day for women in this country, but I'm sadly not surprised that yours is the first question today I've seen that even acknowledged this happened today.
It is the SAME EXACT bill that Bush tried to get through a year ago, and the dems kept voting it down... Imagine that...Why do people keep insisting that the anti-discrimination legislation signed today was already on the books?
Be cause it was read more than just the headline and you will get it all he did was extended more time for the ladies to sue he didn't actually change the already written law
Well, it was already "illegal" for companies to discriminate. The problem was that if the company managed to keep the discrimination from being found out for a few months, that they could not only get away with it, but they could continue to discriminate against her. Only recently did the Bush-appointed conservative activist court decide that the law should be interpreted that way. Previously it was considered wrong to cheat workers period.



Bush never tried to enact any legislation encoding the rights of workers who were discriminated against.



The reason why "people" keep insisting is that they think it is wrong for women to make the same money as men for working the same job, and in general it should be okay for employers to cheat worker in whatever way they want to. People like this are opposed to labor laws in general. They like to think that some day they will own a business, and want to be able to pay people $1 an hour with no benefits.
Ignorance. A rampant disease spreading across America. One symptom is listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I believe Lawyer X answered your question. So, giving Obama credit for the legislation solely is the issue.
It was only done as a "show piece" to say "Hey, look another great accomplishment for President Obama and the democrat congress." They're trying to do all these little irrelevant things to please their sheep and distract from the big screw-ups their making with the stimulus package!