Daily Show: Rape-Nuts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

video

Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.

[LordJon 0]

Of course they would. Why get rid of something that they have enjoyed for over 200 years?

[_Simpson_ 250]

video

Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.

Looks like good old AL is going to fit in very well in Washington. Putting his name on the map and the lefties are eating it right up.

These clauses dont say its ok if you get raped! I suppose your going for the shock factor to try and make republicans look like cold hearted ba5tards but nevertheless the clause states that the person raped cant sue the company. It does not say that rapes ok or that people that did the raping cant be held accountable for there crime.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Looks like good old AL is going to fit in very well in Washington. Hes trying to put his name on the map and the lefties are eating it right up.

These clauses dont say its ok if you get raped! I suppose your going for the shock factor to try and make republicans look like cold hearted ba5tards but nevertheless the clause states that the person raped cant sue the company. It does not say that rapes ok or that people that did the raping cant be held accountable for there crime.

Edited October 16, 2009 by _Simpson_

[meowmeowmeow 0]

video

Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.

Looks like good old AL is going to fit in very well in Washington. Putting his name on the map and the lefties are eating it right up.

These clauses dont say its ok if you get raped! I suppose your going for the shock factor to try and make republicans look like cold hearted ba5tards but nevertheless the clause states that the person raped cant sue the company. It does not say that rapes ok or that people that did the raping cant be held accountable for there crime.

let me guess..........you're a republican?

[_Simpson_ 250]

video

Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.

Looks like good old AL is going to fit in very well in Washington. Putting his name on the map and the lefties are eating it right up.

These clauses dont say its ok if you get raped! I suppose your going for the shock factor to try and make republicans look like cold hearted ba5tards but nevertheless the clause states that the person raped cant sue the company. It does not say that rapes ok or that people that did the raping cant be held accountable for there crime.

let me guess..........you're a republican?

Im a conservative.

Let me guess your not a republican.

[Spoom 8]

I'll allow the benefit of a doubt here. Please tell me what the Republicans were actually voting against in that law.

Edit: I'll even just settle for a link to the text of the amendment, since it seems to be more difficult to find than most laws I've Googled recently.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Spoom

[Spoom 8]

Found it: Franken amendment

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 appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 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 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.

[Page: S10070] GPO's PDF

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

So it's not so much "anti-rape", though it has that effect, as it is the prohibition of contracts denying employees the right to sue for civil rights issues, sexual assault, and various other crimes.

Again, what were the Republicans voting against, exactly?

Edited October 16, 2009 by Spoom

[_Simpson_ 250]

I'll allow the benefit of a doubt here. Please tell me what the Republicans were actually voting against in that law.

Simple, the slippery slope of allowing the victim to sue the company. IMO the clause should read that if the company through negligence made this possible then then the victim should be able to be sue the company. Example, hiring a repeat sex offender. The matter of the fact is that as of now I dont know the specifics behind this and I will look into it, that said as a result of watching that arrogant pathetic piece by John Stewart I also know that Stewart does not know the specifics. Lets face it no right minded citizen is going condone rape so I dont think the republican party needs you to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Spoom 8]

Eh, I'm quite certain that Jon's research team knew the specifics of the bill, they're pretty smart people. I'm personally of the opinion that all clauses in employment contracts limiting an employee's right to sue should be illegal. The right to a trial by jury is something pretty fundamental; disallowing it has a chilling effect on free speech since the company can act like nothing has happened, since arbitration doesn't happen in the public sphere.

And let's be honest here, the Republicans voted against this amendment for two reasons: the fact that Al Franken wrote it, and the fact that most received money from companies like Halliburton when they were campaigning.

[SMR 368]

Eh, I'm quite certain that Jon's research team knew the specifics of the bill, they're pretty smart people. I'm personally of the opinion that all clauses in employment contracts limiting an employee's right to sue should be illegal. The right to a trial by jury is something pretty fundamental; disallowing it has a chilling effect on free speech since the company can act like nothing has happened, since arbitration doesn't happen in the public sphere.

And let's be honest here, the Republicans voted against this amendment for two reasons: the fact that Al Franken wrote it, and the fact that most received money from companies like Halliburton when they were campaigning.

A right to a trial by jury is actually very different that what you seem to be implying here. First, this law seems to deal with purely civil legal proceedings. A strong case could be made that trial by jury applies to criminal proceedings. But more importantly, trial by jury is not a right to sue. It is a right to be judged by a jury when someone else sues you/presses charges against you. In so far as the company would be sued or having charges pressed against it, it's the company that has a right of trial by jury.

Knowing personally people who have experience with the subject, the problem with civil lawsuits is that the only winner will always be the lawyers. Trial lawyers are one of the most powerful interest groups in Washington. They are behind this amendment. They are the reason that the current Health reform drafts have no tort reform.

Ask a doctor. One of the major factors that keeps increasing the cost of health coverage is malpractice insurance. This Franken amendment is about protecting victims, it's about letting lawyers become more of a burden.

[Spoom 8]

Sorry, I was limited by VisaJourney's edit times before (I think they only give you five minutes to edit your own post), so to be clear: Yes, I mean I support prohibiting government contracts with those who require their employees to submit to arbitration rather than sue when they have grievances with the company.

As I mentioned above (and you didn't touch upon), a lawsuit is an inherently public thing. If the company could force all such suits to go to arbitration, they could also put a clause in the contract that all arbitrations must be completely confidential, which is effectively a gag order on the employee. This silences them from warning others about the company.

The court system has been in place for centuries for a reason; replacing it on such a large scale with arbitration isn't something I'd support. I do believe that arbitration has a place, just not forced into employment contracts. Give employees the option to use arbitration, but the right to sue should be guaranteed.

[meowmeowmeow 0]

video

Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.

Looks like good old AL is going to fit in very well in Washington. Putting his name on the map and the lefties are eating it right up.

These clauses dont say its ok if you get raped! I suppose your going for the shock factor to try and make republicans look like cold hearted ba5tards but nevertheless the clause states that the person raped cant sue the company. It does not say that rapes ok or that people that did the raping cant be held accountable for there crime.

let me guess..........you're a republican?

Im a conservative.

Let me guess your not a republican.

i'm a moderate with both liberal and conservative leanings. don't really like putting myself in a category. but what does being a conservative entail for you?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Eh, I'm quite certain that Jon's research team knew the specifics of the bill, they're pretty smart people. I'm personally of the opinion that all clauses in employment contracts limiting an employee's right to sue should be illegal. The right to a trial by jury is something pretty fundamental; disallowing it has a chilling effect on free speech since the company can act like nothing has happened, since arbitration doesn't happen in the public sphere.

And let's be honest here, the Republicans voted against this amendment for two reasons: the fact that Al Franken wrote it, and the fact that most received money from companies like Halliburton when they were campaigning.

The right to trial by a jury is the right of the defendant. It is not a carte blanche to sue anybody for anything.

[Chris and Tanya 0]

The whole mandatory arbitration system needs to be thought over - not just for govt contracts.

As a choice system it could have a lot of potential - streamlining cases and saving costs on both sides, but being mandatory and paid for in full by the company they resemble kangaroo courts more than anything else.