here's a list of senators who voted AGAIST precluding rape in contracting
 

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

this is the list of crazy fuckers YOU voted for, who feel that your tax money should be able to go to contractors who put clauses in contracts which prevent filing rape charges. So if you're going about your business at work and lets say you're gang raped by several men and locked in a crate for an extended period, you can't sue your rapists.

here's the list in which I pruned the sane voters from.

Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Specter (D-PA), Not Voting
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay


Good thing they didn't win an award they didn't deserve, that would be a crime. This needs to be swept under the rug.

that's f'kin crazy! you know who's taken kickbacks from halliburton. did you notice they are all republicans?

They should outlaw the binding arbitrator clauses also.

Chris

an we also have Robert "White ------" Byrd and the recent convert Arlen Specter who's hardly a Dem. Hmmmm, I wonder why they didn't show up to vote on this one? What a strange coincidence. Whatever they were doing, hopefully the were not receiving a Nobel.

The constituents of these people can't even spell arbitration, let alone tell you what it means.

The GOP will be defunct as a party within my lifetime. I'm calling it now. With young people voting Dem in huge numbers, and moderates leaving the party by the day, they cannot survive on the Christian base alone, and if they leave the Christian base and garner moderates and the youth, the Dems will destroy them. RIP.

This is unfortunately quite true. It's sad to see so many people jump on the Democratic bandwagon when many do not even know the difference between the two.

A Brief History of American Major Parties

It's also sad to see people voting for politicians when they don't know where they stand. Case in point: this thread. Remember back to the election '08 where we were told "EVERYONE MUST VOTE!!"? That should have been changed to "anybody who understands what they're voting for can vote." Essentially a voting compromise for the many uninformed/dumb people and the "smart" people in office was created in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution; Thus the popular vote and the electoral vote was hereby borne. I guess there will always be ignorant/uninformed people in the world. :dunno:

/rant

I have a dream that someday, these ignorant, uninformed people will not hold public office in our federal government.

You shouldnt be able to sue rapist. They should be shot in the face with something large at close range, before you could get the chance to sue them.

I agree, there is no corruption in the democrat party; everything will be better when everyone is not only oppressed but broke as fuck.

I disagree with the party line voting of this amendment, however, I clearly remember a bunch of democrats calling the removal of funding to ACORN unconstitutional, this is all just politics, it's not going to end regardless of who's in power.

so now you're going to compare a fake racket with Acron to gang-rape and imprisonment?

leap and bounds.

pretty sure acorn is at least a half-legit racket. but only because they're stupid.

the GOP will probably remain alive though. with the sarah palins and michael steeles running the tragic show.

Figures that our nutjob of a senator Vitter would vote like that.

I didn't vote for either of those old dust bags from GA.

GOP= Bunch of old buble thumpers who do everything they say their against when no one is looking. Speaking of moron GOP, I make a point to drive by the governer's mansion here while honking my horn and yelling choice words...usually between the hours of 11pm and 2 am. My horn is very loud.

fixed.

Was that the only thing included in the amendment? Usually there are about 500 pages of legalise in everything they vote on - makes me wonder if there wasn't something else that the 30 senators were voting against.

well it was sponsored by Al Franken, so who knows, I didnt feel like reading through it.

Here's another idea though: The employees at Halliburton don't have to work there if they don't agree with the arbitration clause...

You can read it. It recieved "light" pork in the form of additional money for defense and troops but nothing outrageous. Apparently a few of these idiots argued that it was an extension of unnecessary red tape. They should tell that to the woman who was gang raped and locked in a box.

Sorry, my impression coems from the redneck biblehumping fucks that "rule" here and get all pissy when someone mentions the thought of selling alcohol on Sunday. Or the Governer here who only impliments things like water restrictions only when the lake is 4ft away from being useless and suddenly wanting to re-zone the norther GA border because some guy with a walking stick and a rock didn't get the border right 200 years ago....because Tenn. has a lovely little supply of water about 1 mile north of the border.
Or the morons who got all pissy when the 10 Commandments were ordered to be taken out of state buildings and schools.

Or they can be asked to sign the arbitration clause, or pack-up and go home. Can you seriously suggest that its acceptable for tax money to be used on a contract with an organization that provides special clauses which specifically enable rape with impunity to the rapist? Please, come the fuck on with the partisan, liberty bullshit.

Don't read it, but defend the rape enabling contract. That's a great idea.

The two party system means nothing anymore. I don't fit the mold in any party. I tend to vote conservative for federal issues and liberal for social, like a 'true' republican. we are so far to the left on both parties now a days, i didn't see a difference between obama and mccain, so i didnt vote. I am however voting against Deeds for Governor in a few weeks.

Like I thought I said before, I would have voted yay. But there's nothing wrong with debating the role of gov't or playing devil's advocate. I don't personally find it acceptable to spend tax money on probably 80% of what it's being spent on. I will illustrate this.

We don't need more stupid laws enacted as part of some political game (and that is ALL that is behind it). If those politicians were actually concerned about rape and not Haliburton there would be wide support, but they're not, and there isn't. And you are naive if you think that the amendment has anything to do with stopping rape. Ask Juanita Broderick if she thinks that allegations of rape are really important to them. Politicians suck.

I'm with Scott. Socially I am very "liberal" but I vote very conservative on federal issues.

This is all very silly

You're playing devil's advocate on the side of supporting companies that condone the coverup of rape.

For fuck's sake, the federal government removes highway funding from states that don't adhere to the 21 year old drinking age, but it's not the Senate's place to revoke funding from DOD contractors that hide rape charges

fuck you jeff sessions

Patriot Act and Iraq war. The GOP had 8 years to try the "everyone should be oppressed and broke as fuck" idea, and look where it got us.

The Republican party is so back-asswards it makes me sick to my stomach. BRB, I have to go re-register as a Democrat. Even though I don't agree with half the shit they do, I don't agree with ALL the shit the GOP has been doing recently.

I voted for neither, but I hate seeing two Alabama senators voted this way. Shame on you Sessions and Shelby.

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Missouri, I could go on. Nuke these states from orbit.

:hustler: I don't see California on the list. Throw your state in and its a deal.

The problem is that the party needs a re-form but everyone for some god damned reason thinks that the only reason the party exists is for people who want to resist being reformed and changing.

People like Scott and Myself, and several others I know don't have many options. I'm not a democrat, I don't really support dems values, and don't like federal policies of democrats. But I don't read the bible and don't believe gays should be incapable of being married and I'm pro-choice etc. etc. etc. I can name a lot of people like that, even my 50+ year old co-worker is registered republican and believes the same things. Heck she's even more liberal about things than I am, she watches fox news and still considers herself a republican and thinks that Obama is naive.

Halliburton, KBR, and other contractors mentioned in the amendment's purpose statement are paper entities and as such do not have penises and therefore cannot commit rape, no matter how much the talking heads on CNBC try to convince you otherwise.

Let's assume for the sake of friendly argument that you and I both work for Halliburton and I fuck you in the ass. Let's also assume that you didn't first ask me to, that you didn't enjoy it immensely, and now you claim it was rape. :giggle: No arbitration clause between you and Halliburton would have any legal consequence as far as the "allegedly" ;) criminal use of my mighty poz rod. I'd still go to jail. Private party contracts do not provide criminal immunity.

If I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could spin that vote as just another example of Democrats catering to those whose version of the American Dream involves suing anyone and everyone they possibly can.

Here's the text of the amendment that passed:
Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier 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 subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Since you don't get to pick which parts to vote for or against, I'd vote against that amendment too because of the "negligent hiring, supervision, or retention" part. That clause gets too far away from a gang rape and too close to a trial lawyer's wet dream that will result in far more frivolous matters than a gang rape ending up in court rather than arbitration where they belong. Remember that these are govt contractors so the resulting costs of doing business will be passed to the taxpayer. Which might not bother you if you are in favor of big government and high taxes.

If all of those allegations are true the victim would walk away from arbitration with more than enough money to be set for life. It's not like arbitration is a magic fantasy world where companies have no financial culpability. It is somewhat less likely than a jury trial to result in a $14M award for a spilled coffee, however. But if you don't like a company's arbitration policy, don't sign it. If that means not working for them, or quitting, tough noogies. Nobody is forcing you to work there.

I feel that only intellegent people should be able to vote. Most intellegent people know how to save atleast some money, while people of a lower intellegence don't. If we could only institute some kind of fee or tax to be able to vote, I think that would solve a lot of problems dont you?

whatever. i can be dumb if i want. thats the beauty.

That's exactly what arbitration is. Arbiters are chosen based on their track record of ruling in favor of the companies they are hired by, and some arbiters rule in favor of the corporation 95% of the time. Arbitration was designed to allow two companies to settle disputes without costly legal battles, but powerhouses like KBR and Haliburtion (and dozens and dozens of other companies, universities, etc) use it today to deny their employees/students/etc the right to a legal complaint.

Sadly, he does know what he is talking about. I have done too many case studies on corporate liabilities and seen how they find the outragious settlements they do. It is unreal. The jury gereneraly side with the plaintiff and view the large companies are souless. Really the whole vor dire process is a loss limitation and not picking people who will side with you. You are picking people who will hate the corporation less.

Are you seriously suggesting that arbitration is more fair than the judicial system?

Sorry, the population of my state isn't retarded enough to vote A PAIR of senators into office that are so dead-set in the ideals of party politics that they will LITERALLY vote to PROTECT COMPANIES THAT COVER UP RAPES in order to maintain their party lines.

There is no justification of this that is even remotely rational, folks. It's rape, end of story. If you seriously think that corporations like KBR that actively utilize arbitration to avoid confronting accusations like this deserve our tax dollars, you need to take a serious step back. This is not about protecting big business, or partisan politics: This is about basic human rights.

Looks like both of my senators (Bayh and Lugar from IN) voted in favor of the amendment. No need to write any letters here.

Far from it. I am saying that both have thier flaws and that both have their aspects that are unjustly biased to one side.

I normally don't get into political discussions on here but I got interested when I saw that Demint (who I generally agree with and believe is an upstanding fellow) voted against the amendment. I am looking for some quotes from those who opposed it but I haven't found much yet.

If it was a political thing (trying only to bust Halliburton's balls or get the government involved in all hiring contracts for more Fed power) I would like to know. I somehow doubt that ANY Senator likes to see young girls get rapped without full recourse of the law. If one does, they need to hang.

Anyway, FWIW, here was what Sessions said:



Senator Sessions: (3:38 PM)



· Spoke against the Franken Amendment #2588 to H.R. 3326.



o SUMMARY "The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. It's a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate. Certainly without a lot of thought and care and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense. Senator Franken introduced the amendment because he apparently does not like the fact that there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today."

Its not like they campaigned saying they were for protecting companies in rape cases. Most all politicians are scum anyway. But yes, your population isn't that retarded... what a great state you guys have... (not that Alabama is any better)

People for this say it's about rape and assault victims. People against it say it's about a business's right to protect itself. The debate here is the same as the debate in the congress and senate. Vote against it and you are for rape! Who can possibly be FOR rape?

The problem is it is not exclusively about violent crime. It is also not about primary businesses but also subcontractors AT ANY LEVEL. So a company services the water bottles in the lounge of security company A who was hired by Corp B working for Corp C under license from some arm of Haliburton. If the water company violates this law, Haliburton is now on the hook. It doesn't matter how many times removed they are.

All legislation has multiple reasons to vote for or against it. Most legislation has so many pages and so much attached to it it's insane. This was about as clean as law that gets voted on, yet there really is no clear choice. If this were about violent crime, why did they have to tag on hiring, supervision and retention? Why did they have to use the phrase "at any tier"?

It is about voting the lesser of two evils every single vote. Both sides suck. No black and white. Only shades of gray.

Arbitration versus a civil jury trial has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with money. Your criminal actions and your financial liability are totally separate issues. Just ask O.J. :laugh:

The liberals would have you believe that if she went into arbitration to resolve her financial claim against the big bad employer (to whatever extent they are responsible) that the rapists wouldn't go to jail. It's patently absurd, because arbitration cannot be used to resolve criminal matters. Rapists are guilty of rape and if the company covered it up those involved should also be charged in criminal court with conspiracy, aiding and abetting and whatever else fits, and locked up if/when found guilty. That's criminal justice and no arbitration contract can get any party out of it.

What Al Franken really meant by the victim "getting her day in court" was "getting an astronomical cash award from a civil jury because everybody knows that Halliburton and Dick Cheney are evil." Money, that's all. Nothing in his legislation pertains to enforcement of any criminal code. If Al Franken really wanted to focus on this one case, the amendment would simply read "...any claim arising from gang rape and false imprisonment." Instead we have "...title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention," the last six words of which will open up the courts to much more frivolous litigation than that involving gang rape.

This reminds me of that time several years ago when the bible thumpers exploited a single video of a blank stare from the brain-dead Terry Schaivo to rally support for their much broader pro-life agenda. Plenty of sheeple bought into that too.

Do I think that arbitration would result in a more "fair" or "reasonable" monetary judgment than a jury trial? Often times yes. In this specific case I wouldn't mind seeing a jury trial just because I'm curious how many zeroes would be attached to the verdict. It's too bad she voluntarily signed away that recourse when she took the job. I do know that if her lawyer was worth a shit she would walk out of arbitration with millions. A civil jury would probably get her 5-10X as much. But that's only money, not real justice or human rights.

This is on par with "you shouldn't wear short skirts or you might get raped".

Actually, this is dealing with arrangements like gang rape...and I firmly believe that women have the right to not be raped, and when they are raped women should be able to utlize any legal purview available to provide proof and send the rapist to jail/hell/albertois.

Edited for effect. Just because something is common in America, does not in any way make it morally correct.

well, I don't know that we're lynching people per say. We are dragging black people behind trucks still. When I worked in Beaumont last year there was a highly publicised KKK rally. I'm not fuckign around...this nation is fucked up.

Are you kidding me? You are comparing civil liability to criminal liability. Not even close to comparable.

It is when you're working under abroad under a federal contract.

Yup. Understatement of the century

What people for this like to believe, is this legislation prevents a company from denying it's employees the right to sue the company should that employee be raped or beaten by another employee. Sounds so simple.

What it also does is allow someone in govt or elsewhere, with a grudge against a large corporation, to go and search through all of the companies doing work for that corporation and all of the companies working for those companies and so on, to find a violation so they can go back and screw with the big company.

When we go to drive the track we sign a contract limiting liability of the track or the sponsor of the event. Say we get t-boned by some asshole who was out of control all day and should have been black flagged and sent home? Well, we signed the damn contract. We signed it and took our chances. We can press charges against the violator, we can sue the violator and anyone involved with him and his car. We just have prescribed methods of dealing with the track or event sponsors liability due to that contract.



By the way. I'm simply being devils advocate in this. I really have no idea if it's good legislation or not. Just emphasizing that little is ever clear cut when it comes to govt legislation.

The focus here is on the company liability for rape and false imprisionment. A company can't be held liable for any criminal actions. Members of the company can be held accountable for crinimal actions thought. I would have a hard time believing that a board member, or anyone in a power situation, is worried about criminal prosecution on a rape from an employee in Arizona on a job site.

*Meant to say Argentina

Those waivers aren't too hard to get around. It is really a matter of proving gross negligence, which is completely subjective. It's like the sign at pools saying swim at your own risk. They are still liable

The company is protecting its rapist employees from prosecution. They've destroyed the "rape-kit" evidence and they're protecting the employees.

Sure, this happened in another nation, but the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that ethical standards are maintained because its "freedom money" and this nation doesn't rape, torture, or generally abuse humanity because we're the USA, and we're the best!!!

Have you ever heard of Kobe Bryant?

The bible reads that women are possesions and must stay home to procreate and clean the shit stains out of my whitey-tighties...so if they expect to be accepted into the workforce they should appreciate the rape as a form of endearment. We should also note that the supported the criminal prosecution preclusion through arbitration would also madate that the woman bear the offspring of the rapists rather than terminate the pregnancy. With any luck, the offspring will vote republican and impregnate more rape victims.

In for 3/5's vote!!!

For Context and Clarification (original story):
Lawsuits: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Means Alleged Halliburton Rapists Could Go Free



I'm no fan of BS litigation but binding arbitration is worse. In the majority of instances the company picks an arbitrator that is less than fair. Forcing people to use an Arbitrator in any instance is not Just (IMO).

Even with the flaws in our Legal System, it's far more Just for both parties.
Binding Arbitration: What Is Mandatory Binding Arbitration?

Picture, b/c it seems creepily relevant:
http://consumerist.com/assets/resour...04/bondage.jpg
Other examples:
Forced Arbitration: You Can't Sue Us For Discrimination
Arbitration: "We Build In Middle Class Neighborhoods Because You Can't Afford To Fight Us"
Forced Arbitration: You Lose, Now Pay For Our Lunch
Forced Arbitration: As Fair As A Sucker Punch
Arbitration: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Isn't Just Bad For Consumers, It's Bad For Small Businesses

That's a BS excuse. You can't take away people's rights or have them sign BS agreements (as defined by society/law) to work for someone.

I wouldn't have as big a problem with arbitration if it was a more just industry and if it would have self-regulated better.

Chris

That statement is untrue and doesn't grasp the level at which Forced Arbitration was/is forced upon the public in all matters of business.

Go try to find a Major Cell Phone Provider that doesn't include it in their Contract. Up until recently I would've challenged anyone to find a Major Bank/Financial Institution that didn't require it as well (they've started to change as a result of other bad publicity/BAILOUT).

See examples listed above as well.

Chris

This amendment has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with money.

If you don't want a lien against your house, don't move into a deed restricted community and fail to maintain your lawn. If you want to be able to sue the pharmacy where you work because another employee raped you in the stockroom, don't sign a piece of paper that gives up that right. And besides, why is it the pharmacy's fault that one of its employees broke the law?

If I shoot one of my coworkers at Pizza Hut (I don't) because he's an asshole, why would the widow get to sue Pizza Hut? It was my fault and I go to prison, but why is Pizza Hut responsible for my illegal actions? They are not. But they've got money and I don't, so the lawyers chase Pizza Hut like the zombies from Resident Evil.

If it was called the "Evil Lawyers Extort Money from Hard Working People Amendment" it would get even fewer votes. The name of the amendment or act is usually a sham. It is a fine old tradition in this country.