Edwards Denounces Supreme Court Decision Denying Home Care Workers Basic Rights

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Once again Edwards leads on an issue... This ruling also underscores the need to have a Democratic president sworn in on 1/20/09. We need a progressive Supreme Court. If we lose this election we will lose the court for years. What will this mean? Affirmative action and Roe v. Wade overturned, the rights of workers curtailed while the interests of corporations are zealously protected, the weakening of environmental laws, a weakening of laws against discrimination, the further erosion of the separation of church and state, and many other disastrous shifts reminiscent of the age of robber barons.

==Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's Supreme Court decision holding that home care workers are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Excluding home care workers from the protections of federal minimum wage and overtime laws is wrong. In a nation of our wealth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty. It's wrong for workers and it's wrong for the economy. The Bush Administration may not know the difference between professional home care workers and babysitters, but older Americans and people with disabilities who rely on them for quality care certainly do. Congress should do what's right and fix the law. If it doesn't, as president I will." ==

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070611-home-care-workers/

[MannyGoldstein]

1. He Led On The IWR, 'Free' Trade With China, Both 'Patriot' Acts, ...

Think of all of the other things he can lead on!

[Gloria]

2. Pay nothing to healthworkers and day care people....what a quality

of care we have in this country for the very young, the very old, and the very sick.

It's a disgrace.

And most of these workers are women, of course....

[Triana]

3. "And most of these workers are women, of course...."

I think THAT has a lot to do with it.

[calteacherguy]

4. "We need a progressive Supreme Court"

The decision was unanimous....it woud seem the law was quite clear in this case, with no controversy. This wasn't a 5-4 decision.

It's not a progressive supreme court that will change this particular reality, only changing the law will change the reality.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. There are only 2 Dems on the SCOTUS

You are right on the narrow issue, though. There didn't seem to be much legal room for maneuvering on this issue. Edwards is right in calling on Congress to correct the law and vows to do so if elected. Let's see if HRC and Obama do the same.

On the larger issue the need for a progressive court has been underscored already by a few close rulings since the additions of Roberts and Alito. The two best examples from this year are the 5-4 decisions restricting abortion rights and limiting the right to sue regarding pay discrimination.

Imagine Justice Stevens being replaced by a right-winger appointed by President Ghouliani, President Romney, or President Thompson. Can we afford the specter of this happening?

[Hippo_Tron]

6. If the GOP gets another justice on the SCOTUS

The next Dem President well face more trouble from the Supreme Court than FDR did.

[nedbal]

7. You are right on

[19jet54]

8. Something is not right here....

... I went and read the decision in question - It seemed so odd that the decision was unanimous - Upon further reading, it appears that the decision was purely based on the law. What also came up is the problem in question is a legislative issue on the law rather than an interpretation of existing law. In other words, the current law on the books sucks, congress needs to look at it, but the courts ruled with the current law.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-593.pdf

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. I agree. I hadn't read the vote when I posted the OP

The problem in this case was the law, not the SCOTUS. Edwards is the lone presidential voice speaking out on this and calling for a change of the law.

The need for a progressive SCOTUS, though, has been proven several times since Roberts and Alito--particularly the latter, who replaced swing justice O'Connor, joined the Court. The next justice to leave the Court is likely progressive Justice Stevens. If he is replaced by a right-wing president it will give the conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Court. Can we afford to take that risk?

[19jet54]

11. The need for a progressive SCOTUS

Absolutely - No question about it!

Elect a Democrat as POTUS!

[waiting for hope]

9. As always - shining a light

on what's wrong with this country after years of Republican rule....K&R!