This is a follow up on Vandelay's previous post regarding the Franken arbitration bill. It passed today BUT HOW THE FUCK DO 30 THIRTY 3-0!! LAW MAKERS VOTE TO PROTECT GANG RAPISTS! And that's literally what they did without any due regard for the victims. That is an insane thing to do right?
Let's put aside that it's an extremely self-evident, morally correct, and necessary amendment to the defense appropriations. How do you fucking rationalize voting against a bill that allows victims of any kind of assault to have their day in court. Even if the defense industry fills their war chests every campaign they still must realize, on some level, any decent person is going find this revolting. Am I mistaken?
I believe only 7 Republican Senators voted Yea on it and three of them were women. Do they think the Democrats are so gutless as to shy away from using it against them? That's the only explanation I can think of. "Democrats support killing babies. We only support protecting rapists- and as long as they pay us that support- so we're the better choice at the polls." Is that the rationale behind this? I can't figure it out.
Their main argument was that the bill was unconstitutional because it prevents the private sector from establishing policies that benefit their own interests. So prosecuting gang rape is unconstitutional if it's written into some clause in the contract that the employee signs just before being hired.
The only other justification is that it forces the "good" companies to go to court with disgruntled employees every time one of them throws a hissing fit. And I absolutely agree that should not be legal either. Businesses can't make money if they're throwing all their profits at lawyers to fight off lazy ass greedy workers looking to win the lottery. But this bill has provisions that limit prosecutions to those of the worst kind- namely assault. There's just no excuse.
The Dirty Thirty
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Barrasso...more like BARRASSHOLE!!!!
Am I right? Who's with me?
This thing on?
Posted by: Vandelay | November 04, 2009 at 11:15 AM
"BUT HOW THE FUCK DO 30 THIRTY 3-0!! LAW MAKERS VOTE TO PROTECT GANG RAPISTS!"
You're an idiot. This amendment isn't about condoning rape or rapists. Nothing in this legislation will prevent rape or rapists from getting away with it. The reason those 30 senators voted against this is simply because they get money from KBR/Halliburton. Meanwhile the Dems get hefty donations from the trial lawyers that stand to benefit from this. It's more theatrics with no real political courage coming from either side.
Re: the Jones case that was used as a prop for this piece of grandstanding: The reason Jones didn't get to have a criminal case had nothing to do with an arbitration clause in her employment contract. It had to do with shady handling by the military and KBR. After the military freed her from the shippping container she was being confined in, they examined her and confirmed she was sexually assaulted. But then they gave her rape kit to KBR security(?)-- which then (of course) promptly disappeared. So she had a legit civil case against KBR for negligence. KBR fought it on the grounds of the arbitration clause in her contract -- which is where this legislation might make sense. Only, KBR lost. The courts ruled that Jones'case against her employer would be heard in court (there's your precedence for future cases). So really this legislation is more of a political statement than anything that actually attempts to solve a problem. But characterizing those 30 Congressmen as "pro-gang rape" is flat-out retarded. Rape is a serious problem, particularly with our overseas operations(miltary and otherwise). It seeems like a more aggressive, pointed effort could be made. Namely by the DOJ and State Department.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | November 04, 2009 at 11:45 AM
When he asked for that extra 20 seconds at the end of the proposal, I thought for sure he was gonna go with "because I'm good enough...I'm smart enough...and gosh darnit, people like me!"
Posted by: Vandelay | November 04, 2009 at 12:34 PM
You're an idiot. This amendment isn't about condoning rape or rapists. The reason those 30 senators voted against this is simply because they get money from KBR/Halliburton.
Who's the idiot?? I thought I made it clear it's about condoning rape by rapists (and their facilitators) who pay you to condone their actions. If you're going to reiterate everything I write you can at least preface it with a "like you said" before you lay claim to it.
It's more theatrics with no real political courage coming from either side.
Courage? what does that have to do with anything? Prohibit the goddamn companies with trying to get away with crap this again. It's the gov't's fucking job to do that. You make the arbitration clause illegal and the next time someone gets raped, tortured, killed it goes straight to civil or federal court where it belongs.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | November 04, 2009 at 02:03 PM
"I thought I made it clear it's about condoning rape by rapists (and their facilitators) who pay you to condone their actions."
Wow, that makes sense.
"Courage? what does that have to do with anything?"
Because the legislation doesn't do anything to prevent rape or help rape victims. Again, it's a political statement, not a measure.
"Prohibit the goddamn companies with trying to get away with crap this again. It's the gov't's fucking job to do that."
I agree. But it's the DOJ's jurisdiction. Why not assign a US attorney's office specifically to prosecute these cases? We have czars for everything else imaginable. And why overlook the real problem -- that crimes are going unpunished -- and instead worrying first about whether victims can sue their employers in civil court for crimes committed by individuals?
"You make the arbitration clause illegal and the next time someone gets raped, tortured, killed it goes straight to civil or federal court where it belongs."
First off, this legislation doesn't make the arbitration clause illegal. Secondly, criminal cases (rape, torture, murder) were never subject to arbitration clauses. So how does this really address the problem? It's a back asswards way of doing it.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | November 04, 2009 at 03:19 PM
The reason those 30 senators voted against this is simply because they get money from KBR/Halliburton.
ftw.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | November 04, 2009 at 07:51 PM
"The reason those 30 senators voted against this is simply because they get money from KBR/Halliburton
ftw."
That doesn't mean they are choosing to protect gang rapists as you claim. Because, again, arbitration clauses don't protect rapists. Maybe KBR protects rapists, and arbitration clauses protect KBR in some ways -- but the 5th Circuit Appellate Court decided employment arbitration clauses don't apply to rape cases.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | November 04, 2009 at 08:45 PM
but the 5th Circuit Appellate Court decided employment arbitration clauses don't apply to rape cases.
Dude, she had to fight in court to get her case heard IN COURT. That's fuckass wrong.
Franken's bill would withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.
What is a logical reason to vote against that?
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | November 04, 2009 at 10:13 PM
"Dude, she had to fight in court to get her case heard IN COURT. That's fuckass wrong."
I guess that's one way of looking at it. KBR was fighting to not get it heard in court. Either way, she was never denied due process.
"Franken's bill would withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court"
But companies can't restrict employees from taking workplace rape, assault, and discrimination cases to court. Only judges can.
"What is a logical reason to vote against that?"
Because it is an illogical piece of legislation.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | November 05, 2009 at 07:37 AM