30 Senators who support rape

[yendi]

The Franken Amendment -- about as common sense and humane an amendment that exists, one that punishes contractors that explicitly "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court" -- is now a law.

In case you're wondering what sort of alleged human beings could possibly oppose this, here are the thirty folks who did. Note the presence of a man who almost became president. Also note that, although all thirty assholes are male and Republican, it is clearly possible to be a male Republican and not be a complete asshole, as folks like Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and George LeMieux were able to support this bill and not protect rapists.

The list of shame:

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)

Comments

[wrldtravlr2.livejournal.com]

WOW.

I'm not even in the US and that shocks me that they could vote that way.

[jerel.livejournal.com]

At this point, sadly, I am not. Some people will not vote for anything the other side comes up with, no matter how much good the new law will do.

When something as simple as "a victim has the right to bring legal action" is a problem, I lose faith in the system. How are we supposed to solve health care--who will be covered, who will pay for it, how much will it cover, what are the rules, etc.--when they can't even agree to the right to due process? Which is in the f&^%ing Constitution.

[itches]

I spent a few minutes clicking around (yeah not very long, but I don't care very much) and I couldn't find an analysis of the text of the law (bias or not) nor any real non-biased insight into why they would vote that way.

Could you point me towards some?

[masque12.livejournal.com]

If I was feeling charitable, I'd say it's an example of the power of partisanship over principle. But what I actually think is that they consider the concerns of women to be inferior to that of men, and that rape is no big deal.

[itches]

Right, if you really believe that … well. Disagree with others, disagree with their reasoning, their results and every step along the way - but at least understand how they got there. Thankfully, there are very few examples of people who truly that evil.

But if we're being unreasonable here, I'm going to hit you with a charge of sexism based on your statement (plus you walked over one of the things that really irritate me). You seem to be under the impression that only women are ever raped. Or is it that you don't believe that a man can be the subject of sexual abuse.

The percentage of female victims of sexual abuse that refuse to report it is horrifying. The percentage of male victims of sexual abuse that refuse to report it is even worse. Either because in the case of male assault because of inbuilt cultural homophobia as well as the typically feelings of shame and self fault, or in the case of female assault because of feeling that no one will believe them.

Why? The automatic assumption - unspoken and spoken - that only women can be raped and only men can be rapists. It's a societal issue that leaves a good number of men without any recourse, and one that you just helped strengthen.

I could go on, running down hill with an argument of sexism and willful blindness until it got totally out of proportion of the original statement, but I'm not going to. Because I don't believe that is what you meant. I believe your statement was the result of high emotions from a related issue, lack of thought and the lack of awareness that there needed to be thought about it.

There is a lot involved in passing a law, and a lot more being effected than just the obvious. Let's take a moment to look at their reasoning (or lack thereof) and try to see things from their perspective before we demonise them. If afterwards the answer if that they are infact Pro-Rape, well then I'll gladly join in the hatred with napalm in both hands.

Until then, I try to remember that we're all human.

[itches]

I would like to take a moment to apoligise to the non-human persons among us. My previous statement was not an attempt to minimise the contributions non-humans make to society, nor minimise the issues non-humans face. In the future I will endeavour to be more aware of my statements and how they can effect others.

[masque12.livejournal.com]

Um, no. I am well aware that men can be raped, I know a few male rape victims. The Franken Amendment applies to both men and women, and I applaud it for that.

The question I was responding to was your request for insight into why they would vote that way. My take on what THEIR position was is that women are inferior to men, and rape is no big deal. I'm basing this on my knowledge of particular Senators on that list and their policies, especially John Cornyn, a senator in the state where I live. I really doubt that they are concerned with rape at all, let alone how it affects either gender.

I threw in a sop to the potential other considerations in my first line, but that is still bullshit. Voting against such a bill is inexcusable in my book, and they can stick their bullshit rationalizations in a very uncomfortable place.

[yendi]

I can point you towards the full text (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r1112GayCu) of the amendment itself, which cuts out potential bias.

[amokk]

Because they feel a business should be able to put into a contract anything they want, and if someone is stupid enough to sign it, then that's good enough for them and such.

It's actually libertarian thought from the extreme right side of things; people running companies shouldn't be limited by government interference. However, that's due to the belief that companies will do what's best for everyone, and if not people will stop buying from a company that does bad things causing them to lose money, and thus "market forces" will correct the situation. Unfortunately that only works in pure theory rather than reality, but people keep espousing it as central dogma.

The law basically just says people can't give up their legal rights just because they signed an employment contract.

[reannon.livejournal.com]

Actually, it doesn't prohibit the companies from putting these horrific clauses in their contracts or negating their legality if people sign them. It just says if they DO, they can't get government contracts. It still holds the libertarian ideal that companies should be unfettered by government, but it insists that the government will not give money to companies that try to circumvent criminal law. And still these senators opposed it.

I think it would be interesting to see how many of these thirty senators got money from companies that have these clauses in their contracts.

[amokk]

I would not be shocked if it was all of them. And I forgot it was just cutting them out of government money; gods forbid the representatives of The People actually want to protect the best interests of Them.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

I will go further, I would be shocked if it was not all of them.

[hippie-mamabear.livejournal.com]

Bond (R-MO)

I really wish this and the other 29 names on the list surprised me, but they do not.

[hat-madigan.livejournal.com]

There were also two Dems not voting- no explanation as to why.

In a further attempt to smooth over the party-based rift here, I thought it might be worth it to point out that it was rep. Poe (R) who first was told of the Jones situation and supported her to bring the company to court in America.

In all honesty, though -not that the above was goofing off- I kinda don't see what this bill expects to accomplish. If we're assuming that the main catalyst of this bill was the case of Jamie Leigh Jones; her situation had very little to do with signing a waiver, and more to do with specific armed individuals consistently threatening her life and refusing her any form of health care.

Obviously this must have gone further than just this small group or someone would have done something to right the problem one would hope... but I wonder what sort of a person would sign anything at a job that essentially absolved the company of any care for your well-being whatsoever. Even in the deepest legalese "you can't sue us if we rape you" has got to come through with even a casual reading.

I'm not trying to belittle the amendment- JLJ's situation was obviously morally reprehensible. I'd try to give the attackers what-for, but I imagine there's a longer line than Phantom Menace had on opening day- with a lot more entertainment payback involved.

As for why those who voted against it did? Many of them may have lobbyists in Halliburton or associated groups and are expected to vote a certain way. Perhaps they, like me, think of this as a decent thought- but not very active when it comes to ending harrassment in the workplace. There's a big difference in my mind between defunding because a piece of paper says the company is not responsible, and defunding because these things have HAPPENED in this contractor.

If I were voting, I'd be more for the second idea than the first, really.

I dunno. Seems like a nice bit of paper, but I guess I just don't see what real good it will do if ten of your employees decide to grab a girl and a refrigerator box...

[mfree.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I really, really hate being the voice of reason.

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself
and Ms. LANDRIEU) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 3326, making ap-
propriations for the Department of De-
fense for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 2010, and for other purposes;
as follows:
On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert
the following:
SEC. 8104. (a) None of the funds appro-
priated or otherwise made available by this
Act may be used for any existing

*pause* That may be unenforcable as it alters a previousle agreed contract

or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcon-
tractor at any tier

*pause* Way too broad. The government could be forced to withhold funds from Lockheed-Martin because their widget office in New Haven hired Bubba's we-get-em-clean! laundry service on paper contract and they had that "full" arbitration agreement clause.

requires that an employee
or independent contractor, as a condition of
employment, sign a contract that mandates
that the employee or independent contractor
performing work under the contract or sub-
contract resolve through arbitration any
claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964

***** 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4 The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees [with regards to violations of sVII, CRA64].

or any tort related to or arising out
of sexual assault or harassment, including
assault and battery, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, false imprisonment,

*****criminal activities are not bound by contract law and would not be able to be forced into arbitration. A contract regarding a criminal act does not alter the prosecution of such because the government prosecutes the action, hence state v. XXX lawsuits. You may have a contract that says X may kill you at any time, but if X kills you, there'll be US v. X on the books in short order and likely a conviction.

or
negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

*****This is the only enforceable part of the admendment.


(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
not apply with respect to employment con-
tracts that may not be enforced in a court of
the United States.

***** This is well meaning but will serve to send all the major contract houses out of country, the lawyers will demand it and the brass must comply because at some point doing otherwise is against the interest of the corporation.



Franken and Landrieu may have meant well, but those few paragraphs were not very well thought out. It's overall effect would have been to toothlessly cover laws already on the books, with unknown consequences, and to enact things that would result inevitably in wasted dollars to supreme court cases where the amendment *will lose* due to incompatibility with art 1 section 10 clause 1, USC. Further:

from Uniform Arbitration Act:
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uarba/arbitrat1213.htm

8. Section 14 does not grant arbitrators or arbitration organizations immunity from criminal liability arising from their conduct in their arbitral or administrative roles. This comports with the sparse common law addressing arbitral immunity from criminal liability. See, e.g., Cahn v. ILGWU, 311 F.2d 113, 114-15 (3d Cir. 1962); Babylon Milk & Cream Co. v. Horowitz, 151 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956).

-----cut

[mfree.livejournal.com]

----resume


Also http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/newjersey.htm U.S. Trust co Vs. New Jersey. state case where NJ was not allowed to alter an existing state contract through legislation.

And, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Acquisition_Regulation section G43 on contract modification. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974. This has rule of law and is 'executive branch owned' and may exclude congress from even legislating on a change to current contracts. Should it be allowed, then DCMA would likely terminate all applicable contracts immediately, leading to renegotiation or arbitration(ha) on due remediation, where US pays off the contract holder.... billions of dollars, in this instance, and IIRC reading FAR and DCMA, the government should probably not take delivery of anything from the terminated contract holder or face further remediation activity, meaning in all likelyhood a total shutdown. In essence the contractors would have us all by the balls.


So.... Franken/Landieu amendment. Nice idea, butterfly effect.

(I went overlength so had to chop. Sorry.)

[i-descend.livejournal.com]

Franken is one of my Senators! After all the years with Rod Grams (the only senator to receive 100% approval rating from the Christian Coalition) and then Norm Colman, it's nice to feel pleasure at seeing the work of my representatives.