Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   House Republicans fail to reauthorize bill that would criminalize most of their other bills   (maddowblog.msnbc.com) divider line 127
    More: Obvious, White House, Violence Against Women Act, Republican, GOP, farm bills, House majority leaders, Eric Cantor, domestic violence  
•       •       •

6186 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-02 06:05:18 PM  
And here is some info the Native American women issue ...

Link

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you'll get away with it. That's because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there's this: according to a General Accounting Office report on "Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters," federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

....

It's not only Native American women. Last night, I received a call from a non-Native woman who had the perpetrator drag her to what he thought was a reservation, and you know what? He missed the mark. It wasn't reservation land. He raped her, he abused her, he left her there for dead. And guess what-she survived! And he got a long sentence. But she had told me last night that had that been reservation land, he would've gotten away with it.
 
2013-01-02 06:15:42 PM  
As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.

Hammer them with this before the mid-term elections. Please.
 
2013-01-02 06:17:18 PM  
Damn it.  Now I got Maddow all in my computer.

ewwwww
 
2013-01-02 06:18:21 PM  
Anyone surprised at this?
 
2013-01-02 06:19:51 PM  
So they have gone full-on cartoon villain at this point? It's like Jafar but less clever.
 
2013-01-02 06:33:02 PM  
But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans

yeah, how dare those people get support!
 
2013-01-02 06:40:55 PM  
And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.
 
2013-01-02 06:55:17 PM  

DamnYankees: It's like Jafar but less clever

Muslim.

FTFY.
 
2013-01-02 06:55:19 PM  
You know what's sad? 

Republicans have a majority in the House.
 
2013-01-02 06:57:38 PM  

whither_apophis: And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.


I know a lesbian couple that voted Romney although they preferred HERMAN CAIN.
 
2013-01-02 07:04:21 PM  

Bontesla: whither_apophis: And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.

I know a lesbian couple that voted Romney although they preferred HERMAN CAIN.



...

Wow.
 
2013-01-02 07:24:05 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone surprised at this?


Not really.  I could understand if Republicans wanted to restrict the law to tribal reservations managed by the BLM, arguing that the rest should be picked up by the states, but the article suggests that they were specifically upset at expansions to tribal protections.  So they're not being anti-federalist (read: cheap), they're just being hostile towards specific minorities.  That's a crappy thing to do.
 
2013-01-02 07:35:26 PM  

Dinjiin: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone surprised at this?

Not really.  I could understand if Republicans wanted to restrict the law to tribal reservations managed by the BLM, arguing that the rest should be picked up by the states, but the article suggests that they were specifically upset at expansions to tribal protections.  So they're not being anti-federalist (read: cheap), they're just being hostile towards specific minorities.  That's a crappy thing to do.


When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?
 
2013-01-02 07:41:21 PM  

vossiewulf: When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?


The only minority group that I have seen them reverse course on during that time has been the Jewish community.
 
2013-01-02 07:53:09 PM  

vossiewulf: Dinjiin: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone surprised at this?

Not really.  I could understand if Republicans wanted to restrict the law to tribal reservations managed by the BLM, arguing that the rest should be picked up by the states, but the article suggests that they were specifically upset at expansions to tribal protections.  So they're not being anti-federalist (read: cheap), they're just being hostile towards specific minorities.  That's a crappy thing to do.

When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?


I think the 1% . Definately not hostile to them ...
 
2013-01-02 08:05:15 PM  

Dinjiin: vossiewulf: When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

The only minority group that I have seen them reverse course on during that time has been the Jewish community.

alienated: vossiewulf: Dinjiin: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone surprised at this?

Not really.  I could understand if Republicans wanted to restrict the law to tribal reservations managed by the BLM, arguing that the rest should be picked up by the states, but the article suggests that they were specifically upset at expansions to tribal protections.  So they're not being anti-federalist (read: cheap), they're just being hostile towards specific minorities.  That's a crappy thing to do.

When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

I think the 1% . Definately not hostile to them ...


and White males, wait
 
2013-01-02 08:17:23 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-02 08:19:51 PM  

DamnYankees: So they have gone full-on cartoon villain at this point? It's like Jafar but less clever.


And minus the puns.
 
2013-01-02 08:19:59 PM  

Gwendolyn: Dinjiin: vossiewulf: When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

The only minority group that I have seen them reverse course on during that time has been the Jewish community.
alienated: vossiewulf: Dinjiin: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone surprised at this?

Not really.  I could understand if Republicans wanted to restrict the law to tribal reservations managed by the BLM, arguing that the rest should be picked up by the states, but the article suggests that they were specifically upset at expansions to tribal protections.  So they're not being anti-federalist (read: cheap), they're just being hostile towards specific minorities.  That's a crappy thing to do.

When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

I think the 1% . Definately not hostile to them ...

and White males, wait


Don't forget that one blah guy
 
2013-01-02 08:20:01 PM  

whither_apophis: And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.


That's because their husbands would beat the shiat out of them otherwise.
 
Ehh
2013-01-02 08:20:03 PM  
The GOP is full of racist a**holes.
 
2013-01-02 08:20:49 PM  

Nadie_AZ: And here is some info the Native American women issue ...

Link

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you'll get away with it. That's because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants.


Tribal courts don't have authority to prosecute anyone for these offenses, native or otherwise. The Major Crimes Act of 1885 puts murder, rape, manslaughter, assault, arson, burglary, and larceny are solely under federal jurisdiction for native on native crimes. Public Law 280 puts major crimes under state jurisdiction. One of the major reasons for this is that tribal courts are under no obligation to provide rights guaranteed to Americans by state and federal constitutions. Tribal courts are also forbidden from issuing sentences longer than three years.

In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation.

I would think this would apply to many rural areas and small towns.

And then there's this: according to a General Accounting Office report on "Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters," federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

Having read the document, it states that the problem is in obtaining evidence and witnesses to violent crime. It's impossible to prosecute without evidence. Compare this to a similar area outside a reservation and then I'll make a determination.

It's not only Native American women. Last night, I received a call from a non-Native woman who had the perpetrator drag her to what he thought was a reservation, and you know what? He missed the mark. It wasn't reservation land. He raped her, he abused her, he left her there for dead. And guess what-she survived! And he got a long sentence. But she had told me last night that had that been reservation land, he would've gotten away with it.

Pure speculation.
 
2013-01-02 08:21:09 PM  
lol at the headline.
 
2013-01-02 08:23:49 PM  
So we can rape women on reservation lands now? How about at casinos? I have a trip to plan...
 
2013-01-02 08:23:53 PM  

DamnYankees: So they have gone full-on cartoon villain at this point? It's like Jafar but less clever.


I would say more of a gaggle of Iagos:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-02 08:24:50 PM  

Bontesla: whither_apophis: And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.

I know a lesbian couple that voted Romney although they preferred HERMAN CAIN.


so much wrong in just so few words.
 
2013-01-02 08:26:32 PM  

ArkAngel: Nadie_AZ: And here is some info the Native American women issue ...

Link

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you'll get away with it. That's because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants.

Tribal courts don't have authority to prosecute anyone for these offenses, native or otherwise. The Major Crimes Act of 1885 puts murder, rape, manslaughter, assault, arson, burglary, and larceny are solely under federal jurisdiction for native on native crimes. Public Law 280 puts major crimes under state jurisdiction. One of the major reasons for this is that tribal courts are under no obligation to provide rights guaranteed to Americans by state and federal constitutions. Tribal courts are also forbidden from issuing sentences longer than three years.

In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation.

I would think this would apply to many rural areas and small towns.

And then there's this: according to a General Accounting Office report on "Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters," federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

Having read the document, it states that the problem is in obtaining evidence and witnesses to violent crime. It's impossible to prosecute without evidence. Compare this to a similar area outside a reservation and then I'll make a determination.

It's not only Native American women. Last night, I received a call from a non-Native woman who had the perpetrator drag her to what he thought was a reservation, and you know what? He missed the mark. It wasn't reservation land. He raped her, he abused her, he left her there for dead. And guess what-she survived! And he got a long sentence. But ...


Not really. I've dealt with a few criminal defense cases involving crimes out on the hill. The jurisdictional nightmare can swing both ways, though.
 
2013-01-02 08:31:39 PM  
In all fairness, US v Morrison pretty much removed all the legal aspects of the bill already (the bit that allowed you to sue in federal court for gender-based abuse even if the state/local authorities found no evidence of such for criminal proceedings).

All that leaves is a bunch of program subsidies and funding allocations. So while I would argue that this is still a useful bill that provides a lot of useful support network for dealing with domestic violence (the programs include things like safe-place and so on), the implication that this somehow changes the legality of domestic abuse is not really true.
 
2013-01-02 08:31:56 PM  
So now it's only illegal to beat up women rather than really, really illegal?

THOSE DOUCHEBAGS!!!
 
2013-01-02 08:33:31 PM  

Dinjiin: vossiewulf: When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

The only minority group that I have seen them reverse course on during that time has been the Jewish community.


Not all of them. Remember during the primary debates in one of the HoR races that the one woman kept asking things like "So, what are you gonna do on Christmas?" to her Jewish opponent. Of course, her opponent just smiled and said "Same thing all Jews do on Christmas. Go out for Chinese."

But yeah, they haven't all moved past it, and the fact that they'll say things like that tells me that a lot of their base hasn't moved past it either.

/can't remember which race or who said it
//soooo much derp flying, I couldn't keep up
 
2013-01-02 08:35:39 PM  

Jim_Callahan: In all fairness, US v Morrison pretty much removed all the legal aspects of the bill already (the bit that allowed you to sue in federal court for gender-based abuse even if the state/local authorities found no evidence of such for criminal proceedings).

All that leaves is a bunch of program subsidies and funding allocations. So while I would argue that this is still a useful bill that provides a lot of useful support network for dealing with domestic violence (the programs include things like safe-place and so on), the implication that this somehow changes the legality of domestic abuse is not really true.


you think that actually matters to these GOP tards? they would vote against a "rape and murder are bad" bill if it had any support from the blah president.
 
2013-01-02 08:35:47 PM  

Bontesla: whither_apophis: And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.

I know a lesbian couple that voted Romney although they preferred HERMAN CAIN.


Sadly, stupidity is not bound by sexual orientation.
 
2013-01-02 08:36:43 PM  
What the hell did these Republicans' mothers do during toilet training to achieve this bizarre level of misogyny?
 
2013-01-02 08:39:46 PM  
Democrats: afraid something bad is happening to someone who doesn't deserve it
Republicans: afraid something good is happening to someone who doesn't deserve it
 
2013-01-02 08:40:32 PM  

whither_apophis: And yet Romney got 44% of the women vote. I can understand voting against (some of) your interests but that's ridiculous.


LOL
those women dont vote. they have their husbands vote for them so they wont be confused by having to think.

sigh
I have a sister who votes for the pro-rape party. It is all about cutting her taxes.
She and her husband are FURIOUS that their taxes have gone up.
The rest of us just shake our head and wonder how they became such greedy little POS.
 
2013-01-02 08:42:21 PM  
This is messed up, but I'm somewhat certain that the illegal immigrant provision is already covered in other laws. But that's not a reason to not pass this.
 
2013-01-02 08:42:33 PM  
why isn't there a violence against everybody act?
you are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime if you are male.
but treating everyone fairly is the last thing the social justice f*cks have in mind.
 
2013-01-02 08:45:09 PM  

Nadie_AZ: And here is some info the Native American women issue ...

Link

Basically, right now, if you are a non-Native American man who beats up, sexually assaults or even kills a Native American woman on tribal land, you'll get away with it. That's because tribal courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants. In addition, federal and state law enforcement have limited resources and might be hours away from a reservation. And then there's this: according to a General Accounting Office report on "Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters," federal prosecutors declined to take action on 52 percent of violent crimes committed on tribal lands. Of those declined cases, 67 percent were sexual abuse and related cases.

....

It's not only Native American women. Last night, I received a call from a non-Native woman who had the perpetrator drag her to what he thought was a reservation, and you know what? He missed the mark. It wasn't reservation land. He raped her, he abused her, he left her there for dead. And guess what-she survived! And he got a long sentence. But she had told me last night that had that been reservation land, he would've gotten away with it.


Thankfully, those meddling kids and their goofy dog have branched out beyond sleuthing.
 
2013-01-02 08:47:25 PM  
Jesus Christ these guys are incompetent morons.
 
2013-01-02 08:50:24 PM  
Republicans object to a bill that allows Tribal police to stop and arrest white guys who be raping Native women on the reserve.

Republican party renamed to the 'rapist party'.
 
2013-01-02 08:50:35 PM  

fusillade762: As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.

Hammer them with this before the mid-term elections. Please.


There's no voting record so it doesn't exist. The house GOP can't say they opposed something that didn't come to a vote.
 
2013-01-02 08:50:44 PM  

relcec: why isn't there a violence against everybody act? you are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime if you are male.


The thought is that even if there are more cases of domestic violence towards men, the repercussions against women when it happens to them is greater. They are more prone to greater injuries, being thrown onto the street, etc...

I recall a story about a county that passed a law requiring police to arrest somebody in the event of a domestic violence call. After about a year, the law was dropped. Turned out that the most common call was when a husband/boyfriend came home drunk and their wife/girlfriend beat the piss out of them in retribution, so a lot of women were being detained. The county just considered it a distraction of resources since the guys were usually fine in the end.
 
2013-01-02 08:50:47 PM  
So, it's "Family Values" now to bust that biatch across the lip if the beer she got was too warm?
 
2013-01-02 08:50:57 PM  

you are a puppet: So we can rape women on reservation lands now? How about at casinos? I have a trip to plan...


Firstly, that part of the act was struck down in 2000, and it related to civil suits, not criminal penalties. Basically the act meant that you could sue your husband for beating you even if there had been a criminal investigation and they'd found him innocent. This was struck down due to jurisdiction concerns, as I understand it the court thought that it wasn't within the powers of the government to have a federal civil court basically override a state criminal court.

Secondly, crossing a border to have sex that would be illegal in your own state usually bumps the criminal charges from state-level to FBI level. I don't know that avoiding the potential lawsuit is really worth having the FBI on your tail and going to federal prison instead of the local cops and state prison for the aspiring criminal.
 
2013-01-02 08:52:50 PM  

relcec: why isn't there a violence against everybody act?
you are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime if you are male.
but treating everyone fairly is the last thing the social justice f*cks have in mind.


Because racism and sexism are very real things which must be combated specifically, or else normal laws will be ignored in those cases.
 
2013-01-02 08:54:35 PM  

relcec: why isn't there a violence against everybody act?
you are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime if you are male.
but treating everyone fairly is the last thing the social justice f*cks have in mind.


When men start to be killed for being male, then we can be on equal footing. Until then I like the fact that if I'm attacked for just being gay or just being female, someone will be held accountable for doing just that. We need to keep statistics on these things. Without the law, statistics probably won't be kept.
 
2013-01-02 08:58:49 PM  

Lost Thought 00: relcec: why isn't there a violence against everybody act?
you are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime if you are male.
but treating everyone fairly is the last thing the social justice f*cks have in mind.

Because racism and sexism are very real things which must be combated specifically, or else normal laws will be ignored in those cases.


men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime.
how in the hell can you justify ignoring the people that are most at risk by a good margin by pointing to sexism?
it's ridiculous. the bill is bullshiat. if domestic violence is the issue, then have it apply to all cases of domestic violence. you are practicing sexism even as you attempt to biatch about it.
 
2013-01-02 09:01:35 PM  

relcec: Lost Thought 00: relcec: why isn't there a violence against everybody act?
you are much more likely to be a victim of violent crime if you are male.
but treating everyone fairly is the last thing the social justice f*cks have in mind.

Because racism and sexism are very real things which must be combated specifically, or else normal laws will be ignored in those cases.

men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime.
how in the hell can you justify ignoring the people that are most at risk by a good margin by pointing to sexism?
it's ridiculous. the bill is bullshiat. if domestic violence is the issue, then have it apply to all cases of domestic violence. you are practicing sexism even as you attempt to biatch about it.


[Citation Needed]

/From an academically reviewed journal
 
2013-01-02 09:01:38 PM  
you people are hypocritical down to your very bones.
the last thing on earth you truly desire is equality.
 
2013-01-02 09:05:02 PM  

Gwendolyn: Dinjiin: vossiewulf: When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

The only minority group that I have seen them reverse course on during that time has been the Jewish community.
alienated: vossiewulf: Dinjiin: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Anyone surprised at this?

Not really.  I could understand if Republicans wanted to restrict the law to tribal reservations managed by the BLM, arguing that the rest should be picked up by the states, but the article suggests that they were specifically upset at expansions to tribal protections.  So they're not being anti-federalist (read: cheap), they're just being hostile towards specific minorities.  That's a crappy thing to do.

When in the last 25 years have they not been hostile to ANY minority?

I think the 1% . Definately not hostile to them ...

and White males, wait


....white land owning males....

Oh! and slave owners!
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report