Unfortunately few things are ever this cut and dry. Very very few bills are as simple as presented in these "this person voted for/against whatever" ads. I highly doubt if asked directly any of these men would say there was something else in the bill that they were against, not necessarily the anti-suit for rape part. So what else was in that bill I would ask, and the *real* question is, what about the other part of this bill was so incredibly bad that they couldn't still vote for this bill to prevent companies from taking advantage of their employee's like that?
>> ^RadHazG: ...So what else was in that bill I would ask, and the real question is, what about the other part of this bill was so incredibly bad that they couldn't still vote for this bill to prevent companies from taking advantage of their employee's like that?
The thinking of the average republican is to value retaining and gaining powers for corporations over rights of "the people"... sure they're not pro-rape but they would put prevention of the occasional rape well below upholding powers of a corporation. For the good ones they believe we're all better off with the money corporations bring to the US economy, for the bad ones it's just about pandering to the folks who gave them the money to get into office (corporations).
The vote was on an amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill. The full text of the amendment can be found here, it's S10069, and S10070 only.
The text reads:
(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.
(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.
It's not really particularly controversial, unless of course you believe that companies have the right to demand people surrender their right to protection from criminal activities commited on them as a condition of employment.
Well I take it back. Near as I can tell from the information provided and what I looked up on my own, it boils down to the usual partisan moronic dance. You would think an anti-rape amendment would at least be able to break that but nope. Of course when it comes to ACORN, well naturally that a company rife with corruption and should be denied any and all government funds. Love how these politicians can flip around faster than a quarter off a stereotypical street toughs thumb.
...So what else was in that bill I would ask, and the real question is, what about the other part of this bill was so incredibly bad that they couldn't still vote for this bill to prevent companies from taking advantage of their employee's like that?
The thinking of the average republican is to value retaining and gaining powers for corporations over rights of "the people"... sure they're not pro-rape but they would put prevention of the occasional rape well below upholding powers of a corporation. For the good ones they believe we're all better off with the money corporations bring to the US economy, for the bad ones it's just about pandering to the folks who gave them the money to get into office (corporations).
The text reads:It's not really particularly controversial, unless of course you believe that companies have the right to demand people surrender their right to protection from criminal activities commited on them as a condition of employment.