Civil Rights Act

WASHINGTON -- American companies will get the final word from the Supreme Court, the justices promised yesterday, on whether they must obey overseas the U.S. civil rights law against job bias.In a brief order, the court said it will decide in its just-opened term for or against global application of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.A deeply divided federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled in February that the law does not apply to U.S. companies employing U.S. citizens outside the U.S. borders.

Rand Paul did just fine at Howard University, thank you very much. Or at least, that's how he remembers it. Mr. Paul, GOP senator from Kentucky, told the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday that his recent visit to Howard didn't go so bad at all. He said any perception to the contrary was created by -- all together now -- the "left-wing media. " Knowing what we do about the political right's capacity for self-deception, we may trust that he's telling it like it is -- or at least, telling it like he believes it to be. But reality-based Americans know it wasn't left-wing media that insulted students at the historically black school by acting as if a visit to their campus was like a visit with headhunters.

WASHINGTON -- A compromise that Congress accepted three years ago to get a major civil rights bill past President George Bush's opposition led the Supreme Court yesterday to bar any use of that law against acts of bias that happened before 1991.As a result, thousands of women, blacks and other minorities with cases still in the courts will be unable to take advantage of the sweeping new protection written into the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Employers will avoid potential damage claims in millions of dollars that workers could have won under the law.By a vote of 8-1, with only retiring Justice Harry A. Blackmun in dissent, the court ruled yesterday that no part of the law is retroactive.

Maryland's vote for same-sex marriage and the Dream Act runs counter to history, political science and human nature — a majority of citizens upholding laws that benefit distinct minorities. I think a little more attention must be paid to this. I find it extraordinary. Put to a popular vote, the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry had been shot down 32 times in states across the nation, proof of the majority's power to limit the rights of a minority group or even oppress it. This has been referred to as the "tyranny of the majority.

The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson called on African-Americans to use their right to vote this year in a speech at the University of Maryland, College Park yesterday marking the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. Jackson, who registered more than 3 million new voters in his presidential campaigns in the 1980s, said the Bush administration was a "huge threat to the civil rights and social justice of all Americans" for not meeting with civil rights and...

AT A FORUM in Baltimore marking the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, some participants questioned the effectiveness of that law and other landmarks of civil rights. They noted the sad conditions in which many African-Americans live, the well-documented and persistent disparities in health, employment, educational attainment and mortality. And they asked why more hasn't been done to remediate the civil wrongs against African-Americans that have endured in our society. While they correctly conclude that the giant steps forward in civil rights fell short of fixing all wrongs, I would caution anyone who overlooks or disparages their value.

This is for those who think I forgot the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But first, let me tell you why I respect former Sen. Bob Dole. During his last campaign for the presidency, he spoke at a black journalists convention where he was politely, though not enthusiastically, received. Mr. Dole acknowledged that the audience had reason for reserve, given that he's a conservative Republican, and conservative Republicans have historically shown little regard for the concerns of black people. He asked for their support anyway and promised that, if given a chance, he would improve that sorry record.

With regard to Robert Birt's claim that Ron Paul harbors racist views ("Is Ron Paul's 'conservatism' just plain old racism in disguise?" Jan. 9), the answer is a simple, "No. " Mr. Birt writes that libertarianism "prefers a rapacious market over community and an anarchic rugged individualism over social justice and human solidarity. " This is manifestly false. Libertarianism prefers freedom over force, personal liberty over collectivism. Nothing about libertarianism says that people can't or shouldn't organize freely among themselves.

THERE MAY BE an ominous link between White House efforts to reinterpret the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and President Bush's veto of the so-called "gag rule" bill for doctors practicing in federally financed clinics. Congress first authorized such clinics in 1970, though it specifically banned use of federal funds to perform abortions. Nearly two decades later, in 1988, the Reagan adminTomWickeristration issued a new interpretation of the 1970 legislation, ruling that doctors in the clinics could not even discuss abortion with a pregnant woman or refer her to a doctor who could.

AT HIS FIRST press conference after he was picked to be Republican National Committee chairman, William J. Bennett defended Sen. Jesse Helms' recent campaign, including a controversial television commercial that catered to anger and violence, and he called for a debate with Democrats over "affirmative action."This issue is shaping up as conservative Republicans' choice of weapons in the Nineties. The Right has lost its two best issues of past decades. But it knows that while the tax pledge may tumble and the Evil Empire may crumble (they're only made of clay)

Readers might conclude that they were well served by The Sun editorial page's 1971 endorsement of City Council President William Donald Schaefer for mayor. Perhaps less so by its lament that he was "not an inspiring leader" or its prediction that the city would soon "yearn for charisma" from the mayor's office. The Sun has published editorials, usually several a day, throughout almost its entire 175-year history. That adds up to a lot of opinions about the day's news, some of which look prophetic when viewed through the prism of history, others profoundly lamentable.

Those who quote the Bible to oppose same-sex marriage ought to reconsider. God actually said very little on what a marriage is, and we see many examples of it in the Bible. Which marriage did we want to preserve - the one where the guy first marries a woman, then her sister, then both of their servants? Or the one with 700 concubines? Or are we preserving modern marriage, which are lifelong commitments that can last 72 hours (or less!) and end in divorce half the time? Good luck with that one. Besides, God's law is not America's law, as we are not a nation founded for just one religion.

With regard to Robert Birt's claim that Ron Paul harbors racist views ("Is Ron Paul's 'conservatism' just plain old racism in disguise?" Jan. 9), the answer is a simple, "No. " Mr. Birt writes that libertarianism "prefers a rapacious market over community and an anarchic rugged individualism over social justice and human solidarity. " This is manifestly false. Libertarianism prefers freedom over force, personal liberty over collectivism. Nothing about libertarianism says that people can't or shouldn't organize freely among themselves.

I just read Leonard Pitts' column in the Baltimore Sun ('Our blacks' vs. 'their blacks': Why conservatives shouldn't talk about race," Nov. 6). Based on what I have read, he is "Exhibit A" for the African-Americans who have been "brainwashed" by the liberals and Democratic Party. He makes the statement at the end of his column that conservatives have "never" stood with the blacks. How wrong can you be? He does not know the history of what conservative Republicans have done to support Civil Rights in this country in the 20th Century.

I am an admirer of the author Ayn Rand. I understand her treatises on free enterprise. I don't agree with all her applications. This brings me to Rand Paul. I am certain it is no coincidence that his father, the Libertarian candidate for president, named his son Rand. The rub is that many of these devotees of her philosophy blindly follow her advice no matter what the particulars. The particulars now are Rand Paul's statements regarding the Civil Rights act of 1964. First, he said he would have preferred to eliminate the clause pertaining to public accommodations.

F or a party that claims not to care for lawsuits interfering with medical care, it didn't take Republicans long to take to the courts to challenge health care reform. The thrust of the litigation filed Tuesday in Florida and Virginia is that requiring people to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Yet again, conservatives are falling on a 10th Amendment "states' rights" claim when they don't care for progressive actions at the federal level. The argument is as old as the Civil War and is commonly trotted out when public outrage (think the 1964 Civil Rights Act)

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration has for the first time agreed to investigate complaints that states are violating the civil rights of blacks by permitting industrial pollution in their neighborhoods.In a step that opens new avenues for legal challenges to the placement of hazardous waste sites and other pollution sources, the Environmental Protection Agency's office of civil rights notified Louisiana and Mississippi last month that it had opened investigations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination in federally supported programs.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, following the lead of the White House, has decided not to apply the new Civil Rights Act to thousands of pending lawsuits involving alleged employment discrimination.The decision means that government lawyers will not seek damages on behalf of women, blacks and other minorities who say they were victims of job bias.Under earlier federal civil-rights laws, job discrimination was illegal, but victims could not generally win damages.

For a party that claims not to care for lawsuits interfering with medical care, it didn't take Republicans long to take to the courts to challenge health care reform. The thrust of the litigation filed Tuesday in Florida and Virginia is that requiring people to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Yet again, conservatives are falling on a 10th Amendment "states' rights" claim when they don't care for progressive actions at the federal level. The argument is as old as the Civil War and is commonly trotted out when public outrage (think the 1964 Civil Rights Act)

Lilly Ledbetter worked in a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala., for 19 years before she received a valuable tip from an anonymous source: She was making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid guy who had her job. So she did what anybody might do: She sued. She was in for a surprise. So were a lot of civil rights experts. If any cases were intended to be covered by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they thought, it was cases like hers. Indeed, even the women I know who are hesitant feminists, the ones who insist, "I'm not a feminist, but ...," usually tend to follow that "but" with, "I believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work."