Does your Senator love (shielding government contractors from prosecution for abetting) rape?

[HentMas]

I'd actually like to see the proposed bill and give it a read through myself before I light the torch and brandish my pitch fork. Their may have been a reason somewhere in the fine print that they disagreed with. Law making is tricky business, you have to make sure all your bases are covered before you make a decision and that sometimes involves putting a stop to a beneficial proposal so it can have a little more processing time to "get things right" the first try.

You don't get to be a president by being a smart man. You get to be president by being a charismatic individual with no qualms against kissing as much *** as humanly possible. The same can be said for most political positions of relatively high rank. I sincerely doubt that rapists are a high voting majority, which by my flawless (not really) logic, one can assume that the politicians are either extremely lucky special ed students or are willing to take a hit to public opinion now in order to be the hero later by passing somewhat more effective legislation.

yeah, this makes me thing of something like

"THIS PIECE OF PAPER MAKES IT SO THAT NO ONE CARYING IT CAN GO TO JAIL EVEN IF HE RAPES LITTLE GIRLS
the person carrying this will be raped at sight by every single human being"

haha

 

[Sindaine]

I knew there was a reason I voted for McCaskil.

 

[Sparrow]

Proving once again that the US government is full of idiots.

Thread ended before it started.

Though to be fair, the general population of Americans are nice folks.

 

[ae86gamer]

I'm from Illinois, so apparently neither senator loves rape, but they do love corruption. >

Hey, a fellow Illinoisian! Whereabouts (if that's not too personal)? I'm kind of north-central. Look for where Rte.80 and Rte.39 cross. And don't come steal my puppies!

*high fives*

*high fives* Woo! I'm from Chicago, and I will be stealing your puppies. >:]

 

[Seldon2639]

~snip~

You're right. I presented my argument as being the "correct" interpretation of the law. Professional hazard, I suppose.

To the question of why we care what the law says on this issue (since no legal challenge will occur): it's, at best, an analogy. We got sidetracked on the question of whether litigation is a "basic right", and that was my bad. I should have redirected the issue back to "will this bill do anything useful", and the fact that I let myself get pulled off point is totally my fault.

The fundamental question (as it ever was) is twofold: should the government become involved in contractual agreements made between willing, informed, and not-coerced individuals, and where do we draw the line? If this kind of involvement is justified and necessary, will this particular bill have any positive effect?

 

[Seldon2639]

why doesnt it suprise me that everyone voted with their parties

:\

They didn't. Quite a few Republicans (every Republican woman in the Senate, for example) voted "Yea".

-- Alex

If this had been a Republican sponsored amendment, I bet we would have seen the same thing from democrats. it's the nature of our political system nowadays and it's a disgrace.

Not really. Democrats have voted yes on everything from Welfare Reform to the Defense of Marriage Act. From the coverage I saw, the hearings on Alito and Roberts were nowhere near as confrontational as the Sotomayor nomination. The disgrace is that the Republicans have caused people to lose so much faith in our political system we just assume every politician is a dick.

Which Republicans love--then they get to act like dicks while the Democrats try and actually work with them without any backlash from the populace over their behavior.[/quote

Look up Robert Bork. Democrats aren't any better (or worse) than Republicans are. Liberals (of which I am one) in general don't notice how Democrats act, because we agree with it. When Democrats stall, vote against, and interfere, we think of it as a legitimate protest and an attempt to force restraint on the part of the Republican steamroll. When Republicans do it, it's obstructionist and disgraceful.

The vast majority of Democrats voted against DOMA, and welfare reform under Clinton got huge swaths of bi-partisan support. The Alito and Roberts confirmations were less confrontational, but largely because they were less confrontational candidates. Democrats didn't work any better with Reagan, or Bush Sr., than Republicans have with Obama. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed.

The fundamental question (as it ever was) is twofold: should the government become involved in contractual agreements made between willing, informed, and not-coerced individuals, and where do we draw the line? If this kind of involvement is justified and necessary, will this particular bill have any positive effect?

I would add that we're talking about the government as employer here, not the government as government. There's a big difference between the government getting involved by changing the law of contracts, and the government making certain demands on its contractual partners just like those partners are making on THEIR employees by way of these arbitration clauses.

In other words, I don't see how you can argue that the contractors should be free to demand whatever terms the workers will agree to, and then say the government shouldn't have that same freedom to make demands in its negotiations with the contractors.

In terms of philosophy, I don't disagree. I can even agree that the government has the prerogative to do whatever they like with contracts it makes. That said, do we accept that there should be a limit to the amount of interference the government (as a contractor) can have on the relationship between its contractors and their employees? The government can (without violating the constitution) do a hell of a lot of really stupid things, does the ability to do so make it right or sane to do so? It's an analogy, but I believe a proper one.

From a pure contracts law perspective, my argument is largely without merit. The government has the power and the authority to do whatever the hell it likes to its subcontractors. But, that doesn't address whether this is actually a good idea. My defense of the 30 senators who voted against this amendment is that there can be a legitimate argument against the amendment (that it will be ineffective and have unintended consequences) without wanting to "shield" anyone from rape.

 

[Silvertongue]

Back on topic for me...this is the problem with Texas. It's an eclectic combination of sensible people from various walks of life and polarized, neo-con halfwits who behave as if they care for nothing but advancing what they perceive to be the absolute will and opinion of EVERY SINGLE PERSON in their party. Go figure.

As I said earlier, I'm a complete moderate. Let me clarify: I'm equally sick of the uber-partisan, biased, careless behavior of many people in both parties. In other words, I regard both organizations with equal disdain. Call me a snob, that's just how I feel.

EDIT: I'm Texas born and Texas proud, btw. I just think that our state, like every other state, needs lots and lots of reform.

 

[Anarchy In Detroit]

Go figure the fucking rednecks voted nay. Fucking losers.

Oh there may be a "reason" they voted no. It will be a shitty reason, I guarantee it.

Halliburton needs it's ass kicked. Also I might point out there has been a rape problem within our own military that has never been addressed by the "liberal" media.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Ah. How amusing. Republicans once again prove that their interest in 'individual' rights should be retitled 'individual companies', for this is nothing more than breaking a person's right to enact a civil suit against a company for negligence. And since no contract can nullify a person's staturoy rights, the whole thing is legal bullshit to begin with. But, hell, while from a party that endorses creationism, I'm still surprised. I'd have thought people more human, politicians or not.

 

[Del-Toro]

I'd think the republicans would be all on board with legislation to combat rape, considering that they are conservatives and rape has ALWAYS been one of those things that are considered bad, even the Romans picked up on that. Of course a few at least picked up on that and voted in favour, but not nearly enough. This makes me ashamed as a conservative moderate.... not enough to go liberal, god no, but still, jesus christ...

Oh well at least the legislation went through.

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

If anyone's still interested I found some news on the case. Kind of enlightening, and validates a point I made earlier about her being fired if she filed charges.

[link]http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702[/link]

 

[Alex_P]

Companies can put what they want on their contracts, and people have a right to sign away their rights.

And the government has an obligation to subsidize this abuse?

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

I'd like to point out that restricting contracts that "mandate" arbitration doesn't prevent employees from voluntary accepting arbitration. So the whole idea that you're forcing anybody into litigation when both sides would rather resolve a dispute through arbitration is rather spurious.

-- Alex