Catherine Rampell is in high dudgeon in a Washington Post op-ed
States are taking action on #MeToo. Why isn’t Congress?
A year ago, the #MeToo movement went viral.
First came the naming, shaming and ousting of powerful men accused of sexual misconduct. Then came awareness of the prevalence of such misconduct, and of the intricate methods — the threats, the legally enforced silence — used to keep victims from speaking out.
Then came the righteous fury.
But, to date, the expulsions and outrage have not coalesced into anything resembling a successful federal policy agenda — to, you know, keep such problems from happening again.
In fact, over the past year, Congress has done (almost) nothing to address the systemic problems that lead to workplace sexual misconduct. Federal lawmakers haven’t even managed to enact a bill that would hold their own misbehaving colleagues accountable, let alone bad actors elsewhere in the country.
Except, um, sexual harassment is already on the books as being against the rules according to federal law and has been for quite some time. Sexual assault on federal property is already on the books as being against the law. And that is pretty all Los Federales should do, because the laws themselves are best enforced at the State level.
She does have a point on it happening in Congress itself, though.
Here in California, however, where the governor just signed several laws addressing workplace sexual harassment, things look different. Also in Vermont, Michigan, New York, Tennessee, and at least six other states and three localities.
And that’s where the law should reside. Not the federal government. They aren’t there to enforce those laws.
Some have simply expanded the universe of workers covered by anti-harassment legal protections. Federal workplace anti-harassment law generally does not extend to employers with fewer than 15 employees, or to independent contractors, interns, volunteers or grad students. Five jurisdictions (four states and New York City) have plugged some of those gaps.
Four states newly bar or limit the ability of employers to force sexual harassment victims into arbitration, an often secret process whereby arbitrators are incentivized to be friendlier to the side that offers repeat business (hint: it’s not the employee). Forced arbitration clauses can also prevent multiple victims from banding together to bring a class-action suit.
The problem here is that Democrats want everything to emanate from the federal government. It’s a dangerous concept, allowing Washington to essentially control all aspects of everything.
As for protecting future victims, states are exploring new reporting requirements, such as mandating that employers report misconduct claims or settlements to a government office, to make it easier to identify patterns.
Incidentally, the Empower Act, a federal bill with bipartisan support in both the Senate and House, incorporates many of these features. Yet it languishes on Capitol Hill, a full year after the public learned how toxic the secrecy around sexual misconduct can be.
Well, it might have been nice for the government to have all the data on the toxic amounts of sexual assault within the Left leaning entertainment industry, would it not? Oh, and would it require institutions like the California General Assembly be included, as there are massive amounts of accusations against members there, too.
What is being forgotten is that so many of those federal laws protect the accused for a reason: the Bill Of Rights. Just because someone claims they are a victim of sexual assault/harassment doesn’t automatically mean the accused loses their rights, which is where the #MeToo “movement” wants to go.
Read: Washington Post: Say, Why Isn’t Congress Taking Action On #MeToo? »
If you think Manitoba will be sheltered from the dire consequences of global warming, or that a few extra degrees might actually be good for this frozen province, think again, say climate change experts.
FOR MORE THAN a decade, the United States has pursued the foolhardy energy policy known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. Thanks to legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush, in 2007, the RFS illustrates the sad-but-true principle of Washington life that bipartisanship is no guarantee of wisdom. In a nutshell, the RFS required the nation’s petroleum refiners to blend ever-increasing quantities of biofuels, chiefly ethanol, into gasoline, purportedly to promote energy independence and fight climate change.
(
Among the motivating issues for voters in US elections, the environment is typically eclipsed by topics such as healthcare, the economy and guns. But the upcoming midterms could, belatedly, see a stirring of a slumbering green giant.
Here’s why I’m stumping for the idea. I’m a 62-year-old journalist, first diagnosed with cancer in 2014. As I’ve written in The Times on other occasions, despite surgery, chemo and radiation, my disease metastasized in 2015. When three different doctors told me I would live six months or “a yearish,†I began to think a lot about death.
