What Changed? White House Now Supports Franken Rape Amendment

This whole thing makes me gag. Will someone please explain to me how a private company or any entity can put forth language in any contract that holds them and their 'agents' (any staff) from being prosecuted for any crime that is in violation of any federal and/or state law?

I think...but, I am not an attorney...that is precisely what the arbitration clause said. All disputes, no matter what they consisted of..up to and including criminal actions..were subject to arbitration. That is why Jamie has not had her day in court. It is a shameful, horrible thing for a young woman to go through. She is brave beyond words. She has testified before Congress, and Al Franken is a Knight In Shining Armour. This must be corrected, right now, and the repubs who voted against it should be called out for the scum that they are. They voted for rape. Plain and simple. Pigs. Sorry, pigs.

I'm not an attorney, but my layman's understanding is that civil proceedings are separate from criminal procedings; So in answer your question :

An employment contract CAN NOT hold the company or it's agents above federal or state's laws.

But there is no law requiring an rape victim to sue their attacker - so an individual can sign away this right. Although just because a person signs away the right to sue their rapist, that does not prevent the Attorney General from perusing criminal charges against the alleged rapists.

The amendment is saying we don't want to give our tax dollars to people who need protection from consequences for raping their co-workers. Something that seems entirely reasonable to everyone but Dick Cheney and KBR.

After a company become ineligible for federal funds because it enforced such a mandatory arbitration clause, how much time would pass before it became eligible, again?

One day? Ten years?

The important thing is that if the rape victim becomes pregnant, no government money, or personal money, will be permitted to be used if the victim seeks to terminate the pregnancy. See, in GOD'S AMERICA, it's ok to use tax dollars to rape women, but not to terminate the possibly ensuing pregnancy.

"That language, the official said, may have forced the government to reneg on multi-billion-dollar contracts. Because of a clause in many of those contracts, the government would still have to pay the contractors, even though the work wouldn't be performed."

Because of a clause in many of those contracts????

Change the clause! P{ass a law that says any contractor who gets cut off for malfeasance of this kind CAN'T receive federal funds!

Who wrote that clause in the first place? It sure wasn't a watchdog, so it must have been a lapdog.

We need ANOTHER law that requires these "clauses" to be reviewed by a public-interest panel to discern just how perniciously protective of foul-play they might be.

Think about it; There's actually a clause in our military contracts that guarantees pay to miscreant companies who are booted from a contract regardless of the work they do?

In the private sector, if one of your sub-contractors gets fired for ANYTHING, do they get paid for the work they didn't do?

When our cozy military/congressional/industrial threesome write their own regulations, you can bet they will treat the "industrial" member of that trio with the most respect.

That's where the campaign contributions come from.

"That language, the official said, may have forced the government to reneg on multi-billion-dollar contracts. Because of a clause in many of those contracts, the government would still have to pay the contractors, even though the work wouldn't be performed."

This makes no sense to me at all.

First, I am a lawyer. Here's how the law works: Congress passes a bill. The President signs it. The bill becomes law. The Courts [mostly] enforce the law.

Everyone following along?

So, Congress passes a statute, that the President signs, making arbitration clauses void or unenforceable for these types of crimes. Victims bring their lawsuits. The contractors try to enforce the arbitration clause and the Courts say no, the clause is void or unenforceable.

Nothing else is required. The statute would not interfere with the contracting process in any manner.

So, why this whole kabuki dance? Is it because the Dems don't have 60 votes for an anti-rape statute? If true, wouldn't that be a great election year issue -- keep making the Repugs filibuster an anti-rape bill?

Anyone have any ideas?

So, Obama was for rape before he was against it? I'm so confused....

"What Changed? White House Now Supports Franken Rape Amendment"

Now we'll see Team Obama make reluctant, transparent, flaccid sops to the infuriated base.

Then Red Rahm and the West Wing puddins' will continue to shiv the left. After all they really don't need us.

Quelle douchebags huh?

Bad cases tend to make or instigate bad law. Rape is such a sensational, and serious, allegation that this is tailor-made for a dubious law that may have only covered the one case on which it is predicated. One big problem, though, is that rape is, by far, the most fraudulently made criminal accusation. Studies consistently conclude that around 45 percent of all rape claims are false, and I don't mean inability to prosecute for lack of evidence. They are false in the sense that there is ample evidence to prosecute the accuser for malicious prosecution.

The Jones Case, no matter how horrendous, is being used to open up a potential Pandora's Box of fraudulent lawsuits. Hey, big news, the Democrats throwing more business to one of their biggest benefactors, the trial lawyers. So much for cleaning up the special interests, but maybe cleaning up *for* the special interests ...

This is analogous to the phenomena of female sailors, where all of a sudden a unit experiences an epidemic of pregnancy upon receiving deployment orders. When you give people the ability to abuse the system, unchecked, then they tend to take it, and the ones who do not take it, being honest, are the suckers. So, the net effect of this bill is, likely, to punish the honest at the expense of the dishonest.