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.

(USA Today)   Senate passes Violence Against Women act by landslide. Meanwhile, there are 22 Senators apparently still in favor of violence against women   (usatoday.com) divider line 320
    More: News, Violence Against Women Act, violence against women, Sen. Patrick Leahy, House Republicans, domestic violence, federal courts, House Majority Leader  
•       •       •

3501 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 7:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-12 07:35:09 PM

timujin: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.


Let's be honest, it's a good chunk of the Whos Who of Senate Assholes. Then again, I think most of the senate would probably qualify.
 
2013-02-12 07:35:18 PM
Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.

The actual parts of the bill with legal force (allowing you to sue in federal court over sexual assault/harassment even if the state found insufficient evidence or acquitted on the criminal case) was removed by a high court ruling (iirc it went all the way to the Supremes, but not 100% sure on that one) due to jurisdictional and double-jeopardy concerns.  All that left was the funding for domestic violence education, officer training, and shelters, which I would argue are a worthwhile investment but would willingly put in the "reasonable people can disagree" category since it's not all _that_ much money and most funding is still local.

//Naming your bill the "we love fluffy bunnies and giving puppies to lonely orphans act of 2013" or whatever is an old, old trick and the name doesn't necessarily reflect the actual effect of a given bill.  See also PATRIOT.
 
2013-02-12 07:35:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.


They don't want Patriotic Americanstm under the jurisdiction of ferriners. And by "ferriners" I mean the people that were here before us.
 
2013-02-12 07:37:21 PM

born_yesterday: AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.

What?  It's an amazing cross section of Americans from all walks of life, a celebration of our diversity!  Look--there's a black guy!


I think he voted no to prove he wasn't uppity.
 
2013-02-12 07:37:32 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Votes on VAWA

1994 (Clinton as President) ~ Senate: 61-38 ; House 235-195

2005 Re-authorization (W as President) ~ Senate: unanimous consent (no need to even hold a formal vote) ; House: 415-4

2013 Re-authorization (Obama) ~ Senate: 78-22 ; House: TBD

Clearly, this is a matter of principle for the GOP, not politics.

Get bent, Republicans


what is the likelihood that Boehner even brings it to a vote?

while he doesn't seem to mind violating the Hastert rule so much, this is one I'm not sure what to expect from him...
 
2013-02-12 07:38:25 PM

Jim_Callahan: Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.


They were against it when Clinton was President, for it when Bush was President, and against it when Obama was President.

There's a consistency, alright, but it has nothing to do with principles concerning spending.
 
2013-02-12 07:41:12 PM

Jim_Callahan: Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.

The actual parts of the bill with legal force (allowing you to sue in federal court over sexual assault/harassment even if the state found insufficient evidence or acquitted on the criminal case) was removed by a high court ruling (iirc it went all the way to the Supremes, but not 100% sure on that one) due to jurisdictional and double-jeopardy concerns.   All that left was the funding for domestic violence education, officer training, and shelters, which I would argue are a worthwhile investment but would willingly put in the "reasonable people can disagree" category since it's not all _that_ much money and most funding is still local.

//Naming your bill the "we love fluffy bunnies and giving puppies to lonely orphans act of 2013" or whatever is an old, old trick and the name doesn't necessarily reflect the actual effect of a given bill.  See also PATRIOT.


You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.
 
2013-02-12 07:42:33 PM
I've I've learned anything from the past 20 years, it's that the names of bills are bullshiat.  While I don't know if there's anything really objectionable in this, I'm quite sure that a true patriot would have voted against the PATRIOT Act.
 
2013-02-12 07:42:52 PM

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


Is it me, or does every single one of them look like they have personal experience molesting their own daughters?
 
2013-02-12 07:43:56 PM
News Flash > Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Does not like the females .
 
2013-02-12 07:44:02 PM
The good news is that they are still against violence for women.
 
2013-02-12 07:44:50 PM
So, old white men and Uncle Rukus.
 
2013-02-12 07:45:51 PM

Raharu: Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or
B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.


Here's his explanation:

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement. "These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.

Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
 
2013-02-12 07:52:09 PM

Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.


I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.
 
2013-02-12 07:53:48 PM
Courageous Oklahomans not protecting Oklahoma women, except from their own vagina's,

Amirite?
 
2013-02-12 07:55:24 PM
These boots are made for walkin'.
 
2013-02-12 07:56:06 PM
"...Meanwhile, there are 22 Senators apparently still in favor of violence against women."

Wait, I've been told that even though the title of the bill contains women in it, that it protects men, too.  So, which is it submitter?
 
2013-02-12 07:57:03 PM

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?
 
2013-02-12 07:58:25 PM

Gyrfalcon: You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.


Know what else is underfunded, by a lot more than this, and will benefit humanity in general more than basically anything we can do on this planet?  NASA.  Close second: the NSA.  But at some point I can accept that we have limited money and have to decide where to spend it, and the people that disagree with me aren't secretly Hitler and probably have a perspective as valid as my own.

Basically, you're in a democracy, deal with it and stop being a jackass.

//Also, your sentence-parsing skills could use some work since you even bolded the sentence but got my position exactly the opposite of correct despite it being right there in front of you.
 
2013-02-12 07:58:42 PM
Good! Men are pigs anyway
 
2013-02-12 08:00:12 PM
NSF, was supposed to be my second example, not NSA.  The NSA is terrible.

Too many damned alphabet agencies.
 
2013-02-12 08:03:00 PM

cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.


Did you have the same attitude 10 years ago?
 
2013-02-12 08:05:01 PM
So basically 22 senators read the law and saw how horrible it was.  The other 78 are morons, including all democrats
 
2013-02-12 08:06:01 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Good! Men are pigs anyway


Not just men, if I'm reading this correctly:

"Over 160 million women across the country are watching and waiting to see if the House will act on this bill and finally provide them the protections from violence they deserve," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
 
2013-02-12 08:06:28 PM

timswar: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

I am shocked and pleased not to see Senator Burr's name on that list.


You're right.  Wow, did Hagan knock some sense into him?
 
2013-02-12 08:07:19 PM

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)



Fark you Orrin! And you Mike! God I hate my farking stupid ass state!
 
2013-02-12 08:09:30 PM

Zunigene: Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sigh


Someone better tell Marco they keep records of this type of shiat if he wants to run in 2016.
 
2013-02-12 08:09:33 PM

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Yeah, I'll be sending campaign checks to their Democratic opponents as soon as their time is up.
 
2013-02-12 08:12:40 PM

Raharu: Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or


I'm guessing Rubio's got short-term memory loss problems; otherwise, he would've remembered that Romney got nailed for all his flubs.

B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.

Wonder how many of the idiot/bigots will be holding their nose to vote for Rubio if he gets the nod in 2016.
 
2013-02-12 08:16:03 PM
Has anyone bothered to look into why these guys objected to renewal of VAWA other than "they were republic*nts- that's why")?  I'm sure there must have been some sort of conflict that would make them so overtly against protection women from violence and face obvious public ridicule from both opponants and constituants alike- seems rather a bold move simply to prove they were all asshats.

Was it concern over the Indians being able to basically createand enforce their own law and how it is applied to "outsiders" who would normally be subject to state and federal law?  Was there concern that this may create a pecedent for other communities to enforce their own version of law rather than following the law of the land?

Regardless- I'm R but am still backing the defeat of ol' Mitch.  As far as I'm concerned, he 's run his course no matter which side of the fence he was on this issue anyhow.
 
2013-02-12 08:16:56 PM

timujin: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.


Don't ignore the fact that Mark Kirk (D-IL) didn't vote.

/sorry if he's sick again
 
2013-02-12 08:23:27 PM

Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.


Wait this is almost on the level of "I'm not sure that it it not unopposite day" but if I understand he is saying that he doesn't want the courts on the reservations to be able to try criminals who aren't Native Americans.
I don't get this, I don't get this at all.  If I travel to New York and speed I can't say you can't put me on trial  I am from PA.
Do Republicans really want to be able to go on reservations and abuse Native American Women?
 
2013-02-12 08:23:41 PM

clowncar on fire: Has anyone bothered to look into why these guys objected to renewal of VAWA other than "they were republic*nts- that's why")?  I'm sure there must have been some sort of conflict that would make them so overtly against protection women from violence and face obvious public ridicule from both opponants and constituants alike- seems rather a bold move simply to prove they were all asshats.

Was it concern over the Indians being able to basically createand enforce their own law and how it is applied to "outsiders" who would normally be subject to state and federal law?  Was there concern that this may create a pecedent for other communities to enforce their own version of law rather than following the law of the land?

Regardless- I'm R but am still backing the defeat of ol' Mitch.  As far as I'm concerned, he 's run his course no matter which side of the fence he was on this issue anyhow.


"Republicans had threatened to block VAWA, which is generally renewed every five years, over new amendments which would introduce protections for undocumented immigrants, LGBT people and those living on Native American reservations".

Oh.  Nevermind.   *sigh*
 
2013-02-12 08:24:19 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.

I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.


It's a serious issue, despite the Republicans' stonewalling. Tribal courts are not required to enforce constitutional rights.
 
2013-02-12 08:28:09 PM
What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.
 
2013-02-12 08:30:18 PM

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Nice to see these brave men take a principled stand concerning our God-given Constitutional right to harm women.
 
2013-02-12 08:30:45 PM
Oddly from TFA:

During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

...

Two House Republicans - Reps. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who is of Native American heritage, and Darrell Issa of California - have been pushing a compromise that would give defendants the right to request that their trial be moved to a federal court if they felt they were not getting a fair trial. Others have argued that those tried in Indian courts should have better defined rights to appeal to federal courts.


That sounds a lot more reasonable than the stuff people have been making up in this thread.  Is it really that tough to RTFA?
 
2013-02-12 08:32:54 PM
Bets with self:
1) All those against were R.
2) Ron Johnson, that disgusting farkwit, voted against it.
3) Rand Paul voted against it.
4) Turtle-man voted against it.

[checks article]

4 for 4! Yay me!  Boo everyone that supports these disgusting pieces of filth.
 
2013-02-12 08:33:04 PM

Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.


They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.
 
2013-02-12 08:34:55 PM

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


My lucky stars! A negro!
 
2013-02-12 08:35:32 PM
admittedly a little biased but a good (though superficial) overview of the tribal jurisdiction issue in VAWA....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/226743-vawa-trib al -provisions-are-constitutionally-sound
 
2013-02-12 08:36:31 PM
Why should Native people be allowed to prosecute non-natives.
Jurisdictional conflicts make it difficult to arrest and prosecute non-Natives for crimes committed against Natives.Complications with investigations and court proceedings involving sexual assault and domestic violence cases further decrease likelihood of prosecutions.
"It's almost like non-Native people have a license to brutalize Native women," says Tina Olson,co-director of Mending the Sacred Hoop in Duluth, Minn.According to its website, the group works "to end violence against Native women and children while restoring the safety, sovereignty, and sacredness of Native women."
 http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/law-enforcement-gaps-lea ve- native-women-vulnerable-rape-and-domestic-violence-1

.
 
2013-02-12 08:36:40 PM

Master of the Flying Guillotine: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

Nice to see these brave men take a principled stand concerning our God-given Constitutional right to harm women.


I must've read it differently- I thought they had a few issues regarding extending the acts to LGBT communities and coverage for illegal immigrants as well as constutional arguments regarding federal versus tribal law and chose not to support renewal of the VAWA..
 
2013-02-12 08:37:48 PM

ArkAngel: Lionel Mandrake: Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.

I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.

It's a serious issue, despite the Republicans' stonewalling. Tribal courts are not required to enforce constitutional rights.


Citation needed.
 
2013-02-12 08:38:47 PM
So what were their reasons for not voting for this act? I'm sure it's something stupid but it would still be nice to know. It's also nice to know that apparently the people of those states don't support the act because those fark wits voted these guys in.
 
2013-02-12 08:39:31 PM

TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?


What makes you think they are allowed to vote?
 
2013-02-12 08:41:54 PM

davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.


Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands
 
2013-02-12 08:43:23 PM

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


But they're not bigots! See, there's a black guy in there!
 
2013-02-12 08:48:39 PM

spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands


It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.
 
2013-02-12 08:52:27 PM

spongeboob: Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands


Except it's not.  You're still an American on American soil when you're on a reservation, and you're not subject to the Native American courts for other matters.  With the right protections I don't have a problem with this provision, but it makes a lot more sense than most of the herping above how the Republicans only voted no because they hate women.
 
Displayed 50 of 320 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report