OT: Anti-Rape Amendment Passes Despite Republicans
The Repair Guy
<quote>
Franken pushed a measure to withhold defense
contracts from companies that "restrict their
employees from taking workplace sexual assault,
battery and discrimination cases to court."
Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30. The 30
opponents - representing 75% of the entire GOP
Senate caucus - were Republican men.
</quote>
The Repair Guy
http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
RichL
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0600, The Repair Guy
> <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yz2h8ws
>>
>> Franken pushed a measure to withhold defense
>> contracts from companies that "restrict their
>> employees from taking workplace sexual assault,
>> battery and discrimination cases to court."
>> Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30. The 30
>> opponents - representing 75% of the entire GOP
>> Senate caucus - were Republican men.
>
> enforce, and who suggested that the idea be passed as a general law
> prohibiting *any* employer in the U.S. from using contracts requiring
> arbitration in cases of egregious acts.
Got a citation for that little gem?
> So the real story is that Al Franken wants this law to apply only to
> defense contractor's. Everyone else is free to cover up rapes.
Really? Here's the statement of purpose of the law:
"To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton
Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any
other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any
tier under such contract requires that employees or independent
contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain
claims."
*Any Federal contract*, not just defense contracts.
DGDevin
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ZidnWtUVexnZ6vW...@supernews.com...
> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>> Republican men who know that the measure is extremely difficult to
>> enforce, and who suggested that the idea be passed as a general law
>> prohibiting *any* employer in the U.S. from using contracts requiring
>> arbitration in cases of egregious acts.
>
> Got a citation for that little gem?
"Republican men" (what, all of them?) might have been thinking of the
predilection of some prominent Republican legislators for same-sex affairs
and thus wanted no part of this legislation at all. It's understandable
that the party of Family Values doesn't want any more embarrassing
revelations concerning Congressional Pages and airport washrooms and hookers
and so on.
RichL
The list of Republicans who voted yes:
Bennett (UT), Collins (ME), Grassley (IA), Hatch (UT), Hutchinson (TX),
LeMieux (FL), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME), and Voinovich
(OH).
And yes, that includes all four Republican woman senators.
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
news:iggfj5pdovu59r0i5...@news.easynews.com...
>>*Any Federal contract*, not just defense contracts.
>
> Oh, my bad. So the wording of Franken's bill specifically protects all
> companies that don't do business with the government. Franken favors
> private rape over public rape. That's good to know.
That goes beyond disingenuous, that's outright falsehood and you know it.
Are you really that desperate to stick to an untenable position that you
have to rely on childish bullshit like that?
> How about just passing a law prohibiting *any* employer from using such
> wording? Or, even easier, pass a law stating that no such wording will
> have legal standing, even if it is used.
Politics is the art of the possible. Trying to pass a bill that you suspect
isn't going to make it is pointless, better to accomplishment what you can
today and leave other goals on the back burner until you can reach them.
This is somewhat like the Supreme Court choosing to hear the recent 2nd
Amendment case from D.C. as opposed to some other jurisdiction, they did
that precisely because federal law applies in D.C. in ways it doesn't
elsewhere. In the same way it will be much easier to apply such a law to
companies doing business with the federal government than to take on all of
corporate America at once.
> Much simpler. It is a blanket protection. No need for government employees
> to pour over every single employment contract used by anyone even remotely
> connected to a company doing business with the government.
Not required, the courts will do that job quite nicely when the first case
comes up in which the new law is invoked. The threat of expensive
consequences via the courts has been a standard legislative technique for a
long time, just setting up companies to lose expensive court battles is
enough to nudge them in the desired direction.
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:44:12 -0800, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>news:iggfj5pdovu59r0i5...@news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>>*Any Federal contract*, not just defense contracts.
>>>
>>> Oh, my bad. So the wording of Franken's bill specifically protects all
>>> companies that don't do business with the government. Franken favors
>>> private rape over public rape. That's good to know.
>>
>>That goes beyond disingenuous, that's outright falsehood and you know it.
>>Are you really that desperate to stick to an untenable position that you
>>have to rely on childish bullshit like that?
>
> about the republicans who voted against the measure.
What does that have to do with you making the absurd claim that Franken (who
I think is a jerk BTW) is in favor of rape and wishes to shield companies
that tolerate it? Or is this one of those deals where if other people say
stupid and dishonest things you're required to follow suit?
>>Not required, the courts will do that job quite nicely when the first case
>>comes up in which the new law is invoked. The threat of expensive
>>consequences via the courts has been a standard legislative technique for
>>a
>>long time, just setting up companies to lose expensive court battles is
>>enough to nudge them in the desired direction.
>
> Umm, yes... pass a law that gives no legal standing to a contractual
> requirement for arbitration in cases of felons, for example. Then the
> courts can handle it.
Ummm, no, you appear to have no idea what you're talking about.
> Now you're catching on.
You might not be an idiot, but you play one on the internet.
RichL
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:14:19 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Republican men who know that the measure is extremely difficult to
>>> enforce, and who suggested that the idea be passed as a general law
>>> prohibiting *any* employer in the U.S. from using contracts
>>> requiring arbitration in cases of egregious acts.
>>
>> Got a citation for that little gem?
>
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html
So it wasn't "Republican men" who suggested the alternative after all.
RichL
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:44:12 -0800, "DGDevin"
> <dgd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> news:iggfj5pdovu59r0i5...@news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>> *Any Federal contract*, not just defense contracts.
>>>
>>> Oh, my bad. So the wording of Franken's bill specifically protects
>>> all companies that don't do business with the government. Franken
>>> favors private rape over public rape. That's good to know.
>>
>> That goes beyond disingenuous, that's outright falsehood and you
>> know it. Are you really that desperate to stick to an untenable
>> position that you have to rely on childish bullshit like that?
>
> said about the republicans who voted against the measure.
>
>> first case comes up in which the new law is invoked. The threat of
>> expensive consequences via the courts has been a standard
>> legislative technique for a long time, just setting up companies to
>> lose expensive court battles is enough to nudge them in the desired
>> direction.
>
> requirement for arbitration in cases of felons, for example. Then the
> courts can handle it.
>
You're disingenuously avoiding what it is about the nature of this case
that requires a law of this sort on *Federal contractors*.
Hint # 1: the rape in question did not take place on US soil.
Hint # 2: The nature of the contractual relationship between the firm in
question and the US Government precluded the case being prosecuted under
the laws of the nation on whose soil the rape took place.
Now stop playing coy and grow up.
Stephen Cowell
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote
> Much simpler. It is a blanket protection. No need for government employees
> to pour over every single employment contract used by anyone even remotely
> connected to a company doing business with the government.
They have to do that already.
You act as if something bad was done, instead of
something good. That is called spin. You're spinning
the information.
BTW, feel free to support your own version of
arbitration limiting... nobody's stopping you.
*Senator* Franken... that has a *nice* ring to
it, doesn't it? Icing on the cake! The 60-candle
cake... don't choke on it!
__
Steve
.
poob-baiter
DGDevin
> Now stop playing coy and grow up.
Now who is detached from reality? :~)
Spender's willingness to participate in a real discussion is in inverse
proportion to his ideology being involved--once he decides "libs" need
attacking then common sense goes out the window.
Voice of Reason
While you people argue about which political party deserves to be
patted on the back or swatted on the ass, the central issue of federal
labor laws as they apply to employment contracts is being ignored. For
the record, both parties always deserved to be swatted on the ass
because they never do anything unless it serves their personal
interest on the backside. Franken isn’t a knight on a white horse
coming to the aid of women who are raped by fellow employees,
government contractors or otherwise. Existing labor laws that provide
for employment contracts with arbitration clauses for grievances
prevent those arbitration clauses from limiting prosecutorial measures
to arbitration when the grievance is of a violent criminal nature,
such as is the case with rape or forced sodomy. The poor woman who was
gang raped and became the face politicians were all too eager to
exploit to pass this legislation was not bound by the arbitration
agreement she signed as part of her employment contract because her
case involved one of the egregious criminal acts unprotected by the
arbitration contract. The courts upheld her right to prosecute the
offenders in open criminal court without this new legislation.
Democrats know they can focus on defense contractors and get a lot of
press mileage out of it. Republicans also know about current federal
labor laws and those who voted for it only did so because they didn’t
want to appear to be insensitive to rape victims. Current U.S. labor
laws protect people in situations like this whether they work for a
government contractor or in the private sector.
The topic that isn’t being mentioned is what new types of grievances
will also be taken to court rather than settled in arbitration; simple
instances of an employee not getting a promotion he/she wanted or an
employee claiming he/she was sexually harassed because someone said
his/her tie or blouse looked nice will now also be taken to court. Who
profits from that? Certainly not the government contractors or
corporations doing business in the private sector. They save money by
keeping arbitration lawyers on retainer. Trial attorneys benefit more
from this legislation than anyone. Then one has to ask oneself what
will happen to that influx of cash into the pockets of trial lawyers.
It will definitely mean they will continue to have the ability to
lobby and contribute to their party of choice - the Democrat party.
Readily available statistics show that trial lawyers and their various
PACs donated roughly 75 to 80 percent of their donations to the
Democrats over the past three years. And, that doesn’t even include
their contributions to state and local party committees. When you add
those contributions, the support for the Democrat party is above 90
percent. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to view this legislation as
political payback on the part of the Democrats since the only people
who benefit are the trial lawyers who have so generously funded their
campaigns for over two decades. Go ahead and circle the wagons, as is
the custom of many of you here who care nothing for truth or justice
when it means you have to actually admit the truth about your sacred
cows on the Left. On a personal note, many of you remind me of little
boys who are afraid to admit the crooked nature of ‘one of your own
kind’ because that would be giving an advantage to the evil-meanies on
the Right. You just don’t get it - they are all soulless bastards and
your blind faith enables them to screw us all. Calling a soulless
crook a soulless crook, regardless of what party the crook in question
is hiding behind, will enable you to die as principled men rather than
foolish pawns.
It’s a very sad world in which we live when politicians use the
victims of life-destroying crimes to make political statements aimed
at sectors of government which they loathe. It’s also a testament to
exactly how stupid politicians believe their constituents to be when
every person who voted in favor of this legislation knows everything I
just said is accurate.
DGDevin
"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>> Apparently you are completely unaware of the childish bullshit being
>>> said
>>> about the republicans who voted against the measure.
>>
>>What does that have to do with you making the absurd claim that Franken
>>(who
>>I think is a jerk BTW) is in favor of rape and wishes to shield companies
>>that tolerate it? Or is this one of those deals where if other people say
>>stupid and dishonest things you're required to follow suit?
>
> It is the only kind of logic Franken understands. When in Rome.
Franken reads a.g.a.? No? Then WTF are you talking about?
Don't bother, as I said elsewhere in the thread it's clear that when you're
in dogmatic mode you don't even pretend to be making sense. What's funny is
that you'll whine about "libs" (or anyone else you disagree with) not
treating you as a serious participant in the discussion at the same time as
you're spouting bullshit like this. That seems to be all you Teabaggers,
Birthers and related nutcases can do these days, chant your slogans and wave
your placards. Oh, and whine about being picked on--"ad hominem"--you can
do that too. *You* have a blank check to piss on anyone you please, but if
somebody points out you're slinging bullshit then they're not playing by the
rules--what a hypocritical clown you are.
Voice of Reason
> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:44:12 -0800, "DGDevin"
>
> >> "Spender" <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote in message
The U.S Department of Justice is within its rights to prosecute
regardless of whether of the crime took place outside of its
jurisdiction. The victim and perpetrators were U.S. nationals. That
does prohibit the Iraqi government from taking legal action against
the perpetrators, but being on foreign soil does not mean the U.S.
Department of Justice cannot prosecute. Maybe you should stop playing
coy.
The victim attempted to file a civil suit, not a criminal suit, and
was then told that her employment contract had an arbitration clause.
An arbitration was requested. The appeals courts in New Orleans
determined that she was entitled under U.S. law to take her civil suit
to the open courts and disregard the arbitration clause in her
contract.
But the fact remains that this case could be heard in U.S. criminal
courts according to federal law. The victim should have dealt with the
criminal courts first and then gone through the civil courts to seek
monetary damages. Granted, the process is arduous in both instances. I
would wager that many people other than the actual rapists could be
tried criminally under federal law due to the mistreatment she
received after the rape and the obstruction of justice than occurred
in terms of not maintaining the chain of evidence properly.
TD Madden
> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>
>> So the real story is that Al Franken wants this law
>> to apply only to defense contractor's. Everyone
>> else is free to cover up rapes.
>
> most egregious examples.proof?
The Repair Guy
>The Repair Guy wrote:
>> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So the real story is that Al Franken wants this law
>>> to apply only to defense contractor's. Everyone
>>> else is free to cover up rapes.
>>
>> I think defense contractors may have been the
>> most egregious examples.
>
>proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones
TD Madden
RichL
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:51:21 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You're disingenuously avoiding what it is about the nature of this
>> case that requires a law of this sort on *Federal contractors*.
>>
>> Hint # 1: the rape in question did not take place on US soil.
>
> and the employee are American.
>
>> Hint # 2: The nature of the contractual relationship between the
>> firm in question and the US Government precluded the case being
>> prosecuted under the laws of the nation on whose soil the rape took
>> place.
>
> This is about the woman being able to have here *civil* case heard in
> public rather than in arbitration.
It is pertinent to criminal prosecution because, due to the factors
cited above, the perpetrators of the act were beyond criminal
prosecution, and a civil suit was the victim's only recourse to achieve
justice.
RichL
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:45:56 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> democrats are known for being the DOD's strongest supporter.
>
> Oh brother...
Oh brother, yourself.
Since you snipped your disingenuous little statement, I'll repeat it
here, together with Repair Guy's post that you were responding to:
Repair Guy:
<quote>
Franken pushed a measure to withhold defense
contracts from companies that "restrict their
employees from taking workplace sexual assault,
battery and discrimination cases to court."
Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30. The 30
opponents - representing 75% of the entire GOP
Senate caucus - were Republican men.
</quote>
Spender:
Republican men who know that the measure is extremely difficult to
enforce, and who suggested that the idea be passed as a general law
prohibiting *any* employer in the U.S. from using contracts requiring
arbitration in cases of egregious acts.
Given the context provided by Repair Guy's post, it's clear that you
were referring to the 30 Republican men in the Senate who opposed the
measure.
Instead, it was the *Defense Department* of a *Democratic*
administration.
But hey, they're all the same, right?
RichL
That's the one that made the law necessary. One is all it takes.
RichL
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:45:56 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> democrats are known for being the DOD's strongest supporter.
>
> Oh brother...
Good grief, if the crime in question was murder rather than rape, would
we even be having this discussion?
RichL
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:09:48 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Franken's law has nothing at all to do with criminal prosecution.
>>> This is about the woman being able to have here *civil* case heard
>>> in public rather than in arbitration.
>>
>> It is pertinent to criminal prosecution because, due to the factors
>> cited above, the perpetrators of the act were beyond criminal
>> prosecution, and a civil suit was the victim's only recourse to
>> achieve justice.
>
> territory is more or less considered to be U.S. territory when it
> comes to crimes committed against an American citizen that cannot be
> prosecuted by the government of the occupied territory.
>
> The law only applies to civil suits by an employee against an
> employer. But a court has already stated that the woman can sue
> despite of the arbitration provision in her contract.
I guess I don't get why they could be prosecuted in the rape case, but
there's a potential issue in this one:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPGbLqrDDJD4
RichL
> Republicans were supporting? Or do you actually believe those 30 men
> are in favor of rape, as the democrat rhetoric suggests?
No, I believe that they're in favor of (a) keeping the Feds out of their
business and (b) avoiding bad publicity.
RichL
Nice dodge. Their families do.
RichL
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:16:20 -0500, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
> already been granted her day in court without any need for such a law?
Gee, it's only been 3 1/2 years.
Voice of Reason
> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:09:48 -0500, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>
> >>> Franken's law has nothing at all to do with criminal prosecution.
> >>> This is about the woman being able to have here *civil* case heard
> >>> in public rather than in arbitration.
>
> >> It is pertinent to criminal prosecution because, due to the factors
> >> cited above, the perpetrators of the act were beyond criminal
> >> prosecution, and a civil suit was the victim's only recourse to
> >> achieve justice.
>
> > But the alleged perpetrators can be prosecuted because U.S. occupied
> > territory is more or less considered to be U.S. territory when it
> > comes to crimes committed against an American citizen that cannot be
> > prosecuted by the government of the occupied territory.
>
> > The law only applies to civil suits by an employee against an
> > employer. But a court has already stated that the woman can sue
> > despite of the arbitration provision in her contract.
>
> I guess I don't get why they could be prosecuted in the rape case, but
> there's a potential issue in this one:
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPGbLqrDDJD4
As was previously stated, the reason the U.S. Department of Justice is
able to prosecute the alleged rapists is because both the perpetrators
and victim were U.S, Nationals. They were merely operating in a
foreign country. That doesn't place them outside of the jurisdiction.
If U.S. Atty. Eric Holder wanted to bring charges against the one
rapist who admitted to having sex with the victim, he could do so
tomorrow. Unfortunately, the victim is unable to identify the other
rapists because she had been drugged. And, to make matters more
difficult, the evidence collected by medical staff was not stored
securely. Photos and written documents are missing. I would, however,
assume that multiple semen samples may have been collected from her
vaginal and anal cavities. If they were stored properly, DNA results
could implicate some of the other rapists.
You should be asking yourself why the U.S. Department of Justice,
during the Bush administration and now during the Obama
administration, is not interested in criminal prosecution. That is a
cause Franken should have promoted. He and all members of Congress
should have pressed to have this case heard in criminal court.
Spender is correct. Franken's legislation does not further justice. It
was merely a jab in the eye to the military establishment and a jab
that will score him some political points with those of his ilk.
Federal labor laws protected employees on the civil suit front, and
federal criminal code protected American employees on U.S. soil and
abroad from being the victim of their American co-workers who
committed violent crimes.
Like I said, the only winners are the trial lawyers because people
will be much more eager to take their chances on big jury awards than
on arbitration settlements. And, I trust you remember what I said
about the Democrats being bought and paid for by the trial lawyers.
The data on their donations is publicly available, but I don't think
you'll bother looking for it.
Voice of Reason
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:09:48 -0500, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>
> >>> Franken's law has nothing at all to do with criminal prosecution.
> >>> This is about the woman being able to have here *civil* case heard
> >>> in public rather than in arbitration.
>
> >> It is pertinent to criminal prosecution because, due to the factors
> >> cited above, the perpetrators of the act were beyond criminal
> >> prosecution, and a civil suit was the victim's only recourse to
> >> achieve justice.
>
> > But the alleged perpetrators can be prosecuted because U.S. occupied
> > territory is more or less considered to be U.S. territory when it
> > comes to crimes committed against an American citizen that cannot be
> > prosecuted by the government of the occupied territory.
>
> > The law only applies to civil suits by an employee against an
> > employer. But a court has already stated that the woman can sue
> > despite of the arbitration provision in her contract.
>
> I guess I don't get why they could be prosecuted in the rape case, but
> there's a potential issue in this one:
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPGbLqrDDJD4
Oh, and your Bloomberg link is a totally different legal situation. It
actually proves the case that Franken's legislation was not needed for
the rape case to be prosecuted because of who the victim and
perpetrators worked for in terms of which Department - the Department
of Defense. If you work for the Department of Defense, either as a
direct employee or contracted employee, you ARE subject to criminal
prosecution in U.S. courts for crimes you commit abroad.
These Blackwater employees were contracted by the State Department and
according to the spokesman for the Department of Defense their work
did not support a Department of Defense mission in a direct way. It's
also a different situation because the victims were not fellow U.S.
Nationals. I suspect the legal wrangling between Departments and
parsing of words about 'mission' would not be happening if one
Blackwater employee shot a few co-workers.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0600, The Repair Guy
> <repair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yz2h8ws
>>
>> Franken pushed a measure to withhold defense
>> contracts from companies that "restrict their
>> employees from taking workplace sexual assault,
>> battery and discrimination cases to court."
>> Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30. The 30
>> opponents - representing 75% of the entire GOP
>> Senate caucus - were Republican men.
>
> enforce,
Nope.