Sherrod Brown's False Email Response

I had sent a few days ago to the office of Ohio State Senator Sherrod Brown, an email stating NO to CAP & TAX. It was a well written email saying clearly NO!!!! This is the response I get.

Thank you for sharing your views about clean energy legislation.

Effective clean energy legislation will reduce climate pollution and promote the production of renewable energy—but most importantly it will ensure the creation of new clean energy jobs and industries. Clean energy legislation must also ensure the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers and protect consumers by keeping utility rates affordable. We must work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making America a global leader in clean energy manufacturing.

For this reason, I recently announced legislation called the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act. This legislation, which was included in the House energy bill, would support manufacturers' transition to the clean energy economy and ensure clean energy jobs are created here in the U.S. This legislation would create a revolving loan fund for small and medium size manufacturers to retool and expand facilities to produce clean energy technology and energy efficient products. It is estimated this measure will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Any clean energy legislation must also prevent the serious problem of carbon leakage, which can undermine our clean energy goals. If American manufacturers are forced to move operations overseas, we would not only lose jobs but would also see the counterproductive “export” of carbon beyond our borders. To protect against the threat of carbon leakage, I have proposed several provisions that will keep energy costs low and level the playing field for domestic energy-intensive manufacturers.

I appreciate hearing your input on this important topic. As clean energy legislation continues to be discussed in Congress, I will work to ensure that an unfair burden is not placed on Ohio families and businesses. I will only support legislation that creates new jobs and economic opportunities across Ohio.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

What a joke! No wonder the Democratic party is in trouble this coming election. You would figure that after 8 years that they would get it! Guess not! Vote these idiots out of office once and for all!

Black Firefighters Can Sue

This is amazing. Now we have to have two different tests. One for whites with high standards and another with lower standards for all others. Don't you just love it!! I bet that if the whites scored lower, then it would be, "Oh well!" Maybe others did not score well enough because they are not smart enough or didn't study long enough. If you can't pass a test, then you do FAIL! You are putting others life in danger because of your short comings. Choose a new career that doesn't put others in arms way.

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of African Americans did not wait too long to sue Chicago over a hiring test they challenged as discriminatory, freeing them to collect a lower court judgment.

It is the second time in as many years that the high court has a 5-4 decision said New Haven, Conn., violated white firefighters' civil rights, throwing out an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain.

In Monday's opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court that the applicants' lawsuit over a city of Chicago test used to weed out potential firefighter trainee applicants was not too late.

"Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality," said John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., who argued the case. "This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not."

Anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified. But the city set a second cutoff score of 89 points.

Officials told applicants who scored below 89 but above 64 that although they passed the test, they likely would not be hired because of the large number of people who scored 89 or above. The majority of those in the top-scoring group were white; only 11 percent were black.

People are supposed to sue within 300 days after an employment action they seek to challenge as unlawful.

The city says the clock started when it announced the use of the test scores on Jan. 26, 1996. The first lawsuit in the case was filed on March 31, 1997, 430 days after the city announced the results.

But the plaintiffs say a new act of discrimination also happened each time the scores were used in hiring firefighter trainees between May 1996 and October 2001.

A U.S. District judge agreed with the black applicants. After an eight-day trial, the federal judge ordered the city to hire 132 randomly selected African American applicants who scored above 64. The court also ordered the city to count up the backpay and divide it among the rest of the applicants.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago overturned that decision.

In Monday's high court ruling, Scalia said: "It may be true that the City's January 1996 decision to adopt the cutoff score (and to create a list of the applicants above it) gave rise to a freestanding disparate impact claim. ... But it does not follow that no new violation occurred — and no new claims could arise — when the City implemented that decision down the road. If petitioners could prove that the City 'used' the 'practice' that 'causes a disparate impact,' they could prevail."

City officials and business groups argue that the court's decision allowing the black firefighter lawsuit and judgment will cause a host of legal problems for them, including opening them to lawsuits claiming unintended discrimination "for practices they have used regularly for years."

"It is not our task to assess the consequences of each approach and adopt the one that produces the least mischief," Scalia wrote. "Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted ... Congress allowed claims to be brought against an employer who uses a practice that causes disparate impact, whatever the employer's motive and whether or not he has employed the same practice in the past. If that effect was unintended, it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix."

The case is Lewis v. Chicago, 08-974.

I'm Back

I'm back finally!! This was getting to be like a full time job. Now I have free time and will be turning this blog into a "Take Back America" blog. Stay tuned!!