Every woman in the chamber supported the legislation.

Yeah, but Kay Bailey Hutchison?

I noticed the Queens of Maine voted 'Aye'.

This will be the fig-leaf that lets them vote against women, workers, and the environment on every other bill that comes up.

They've got their 'moderate' ticket punched for the next two years.

Couple of scam artists -- and the woman voters of Maine keep putting them back in, over and over, on the strength of a few gestural votes like this....

I support the Lilly Ledbetter act wholeheartedly, but there's something wrong with your logic. Why should Republicans (or any minority faction) vote for something they oppose just because they "know" it's going to pass? That makes no sense.

I visited some Republican friends last week--the kind that watch Fox News religiously and think 24 is reality based. They are convinced the Ledbetter legislation will end civilization as we know it. They claim it will put every trial lawyer in America to work overtime.

I am really worried that the lack of genuine debate on issues such as Ledbetter threatens the very fabric of our society. We really ought to find ways to engage the right constructively.

Why should Republicans ... vote for something they oppose

I don't think the argument is that they should vote against their conscience. The argument is that politicians by nature tend to make insincere gestures when there is no cost. In this case they could have argued that they compromised, or that they supported women, but rather chose not to.

The other side of the question would be, do these 36 Republicans actually believe in the position they did take, or are they merely trying to be seen as tough, or anti-frivolous-law-suit?

Thanks for the idiot sexism, Davis. All the women in Maine I know vote Democratic.

Senate Republicans are turning into the "bitter dead-enders" we heard so much about in Iraq.

Therefore, and likewise, they must be systematically destroyed.

Ratnerstar -

Why should any Republican oppose it? The bill is a technical correction to an old law that hasn't worked as well as it could and was hobbled a bit by a Supreme Court decision that was easily corrected. Republicans who oppose this bill are being silly here.

Those Republicans who lose votes in 2010 need to remember that they are saying that companies that hide their discrimination long enough should be rewarded for discriminating against women and hiding that discrimination. No one with a lick of sense or any sense of ethics would think that rewarding those who break the law long enough is a good idea.

I never said Republicans should oppose it. It's a good bill; everyone should support it, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, given that for whatever reason some people don't support it, it's nonsensical to call for them to vote for it just because it's going to pass.

I don't recall Democrats voting for all the crap that was passed during the years of GOP control, even though the results of the vote were often a foregone conclusion. Hell, I voted for Kerry in Texas, even though I knew he wasn't going to win. That's how democracy works.

given that for whatever reason some people don't support it, it's nonsensical to call for them to vote for it just because it's going to pass.

True, but I think the point was that if there's a bill that's going to pass anyway and is popular with the public, generally a few of the opposition will vote for it anyway out of expediency, especially if they have an election coming up. You have to pick your fights after all.

The fact that almost no Republican males voted for this does seem to show that they think opposition to fair pay is a winning political issue (which IMHO just shows how out of touch they still are).

Whether Republicans vote against the bill or not is a minor issue. Whether they support a filibuster against a bill the majority wants and whose impact does not represent a critical issue of constitutional import or corrupt practice is a major issue.

The filibuster is not supposed to be used to express Dog-in-the-Manger petulance because the majority party is passing laws according to its principles instead of those of the minority.

Voting their conscience may not get the Republicans in trouble, but throwing temper tantrums because they the winners in the last election are trying to run the government is going to hurt them.

To hear opponents of the bill tell it, making it easier to challenge pay discrimination will lead to more lawsuits.

And we all know that more lawsuits means more money in the pockets of trial lawyers which means more contributions to Democrats, which means bigger problems for Republicans trying to bamboozle the working class into voting for them.

Not to mention, "Republican" is a synonym for "defendant."

Rabbit, you don't know enough Maine women, or the wrong Maine women.

Given a normal Dem-Rep gender gap, Collins gets beat by Brennan (depending on Rensenbrink and the Greens) and Snowe squeaks by Lawrence in 2000.

The pair of them have skated, because they're pro-choice, and voted against Clinton's impeachment, and voted for the family leave act. Three votes in twenty-some legislator-years.

They're wrong all the rest of the time, they're especially wrong when the vote to organize the Senate comes around (Collins and Snowe gave us Trent Lott and Bill Frist) and too many of Maine's nominally Democratic women don't want to hear it.

"Every woman in the chamber supported the legislation."

Republican votes almost entirely along gender lines on this issue shine a light on the main difference between Dems and Republicans: Dems have empathy; Republicans do not.

Davis, my point is, why is it only women's responsibility to vote for what's right? I guarantee you that if every man in Maine voted for the Democrat, the Democrat would win. I don't think the majority of women who vote for Snowe and Collins are voting for them because they're women. They're voting for them because they've been around a long time (especially Snowe), they're so-called moderates, they are thought to embody some kind of mavericky Maine tradition, and as people willing to break with their party they appear to give Maine more a voice in the Senate than it would otherwise have.