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 10:30:15 PM

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: 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

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


The first one to send out a psychologist... there is a good chance you were punching a sock puppet.

/If you had sex first you could say it was American beer...
//farking close to water
 
2013-02-12 10:30:20 PM

g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?


He asked for a definition of landslide, as used in an election, and you reply with some nonsense about it being 'well-defined' without referencing what that definition might be? I mean, you didn't even bother to make up an un-cited definition that helps your 'point'?  Wow, that's some weak-ass shiat. It's also some weak ass-shiat.
 
2013-02-12 10:30:43 PM

theknuckler_33: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

So, you want to ignore that that '100 member body' is the current US Senate that is perhaps the most ideologically divided as it has been in the past 150 years? Yea, if you want to ignore that... and I suppose that 78% of the vote is almost universally accepted as a 'landslide', then yea, I suppose you have a point. I guess. Sort of.

/not really


So you're using contemporary usage?  You mean like the 49% of the popular vote being a "landslide" for GWB in '04?  Common misusage is still misusage.  And all the wishful thinking in the world won't make a landslide out of a party line vote with a few aisle crossers.
 
2013-02-12 10:31:50 PM

LoneWolf343: Bad name for the bill. It's what I thought of at first until I noticed that it now covers gay partnerships as well.


it covers all victims of domestic abuse no matter what gender or orientation
 
2013-02-12 10:32:18 PM
Now women are going to start shooting cops and hiding in burning cabins.
DAMN YOU CONGRESS
 
2013-02-12 10:32:20 PM
Only traitors and terrorists oppose the PATRIOT Act.
 
2013-02-12 10:32:36 PM

Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?


So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"
 
2013-02-12 10:35:03 PM

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


Your 2004 self just called. He says only liberals and terrorist appeasers say that. You RINO.
 
2013-02-12 10:36:15 PM

g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?

So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"


OK

Landslide, n.: A victory achieved by winning 75% or more in a vote.

BOOM!  MUTHAfrkkIN LANDSLIDE BIATCH!!
 
2013-02-12 10:37:21 PM

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: 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

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


I would guess who ever registered your canoe or more likely whoever caught you first Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters#cite_note-2" >[2] (if there is one) however, when a ship is involved in certain criminal acts, such as piracy,http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/International_waters#cite_note-3">[3] any nation can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction
 
2013-02-12 10:37:53 PM

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: 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

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


We bury you on the border
 
2013-02-12 10:40:42 PM

LoneWolf343: Bad name for the bill. It's what I thought of at first until I noticed that it now covers gay partnerships as well.


Yeah, it really should be renamed to the "Domestic Violence Act" or something like that, if only to shut up the Republicans pretending that they don't realise it's not gender specific.
 
2013-02-12 10:42:40 PM

jestme: 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


Two things are wrong in your statement.  Mark Kirk did vote (happened be Yea), and he is a Republican.    Of course I knew that he voted considering the vote was 78 to 22, which conveniently adds up to 100:  the current number of US Senators.
 
2013-02-12 10:46:36 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In the interest of fairness, here's a list of Democrat Senators who voted Nay:


And building off that, here's a list of female Senators who voted Nay:

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

/sorry if he's sick again


Mark Kirk is a Republican. He also supports reauthorizing VAWA. Representing Illinois, he'd be crazy not to.
 
2013-02-12 10:47:57 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: ramblinwreck: BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.

It's "Trolltastic" to say that "The Violence Against Women Act has something to do with violence against women"?

ಠ_ಠ


See the post below yours. Subby is illiterate or a troll. The bill doesn't cover only women, despite the title of the bill.
 
2013-02-12 10:48:09 PM
For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?
 
2013-02-12 10:50:12 PM
Still waiting for a citation showing that Tribal Courts would be unconstitutional, and that they wouldn't have constitutional safe guards.
 
2013-02-12 10:51:01 PM

Lionel Mandrake: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?

So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"

OK

Landslide, n.: A victory achieved by winning 75% or more in a vote.

BOOM!  MUTHAfrkkIN LANDSLIDE BIATCH!!


www.reelseo.com

Some days, it's just too easy.

cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-02-12 10:51:42 PM

GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?


I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?
 
2013-02-12 10:53:57 PM

ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?


it is important to find some fault with liberals here, I know
 
2013-02-12 10:55:27 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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.



you hear that callahan!?!?!
you are evil callahan, pure stinking evil, for prohibiting L.A. county, and the state of california, and the city of L.A. from raising their taxes to fund domestic violence shelters.


Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy! Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!


yes, pussies one and all for asking for equal protection of the law for EVERYONE, you know, justice.
 
2013-02-12 10:57:13 PM

Jackson Herring: it is

important to find some fault with liberals here, I know OK when my side does it.

ftfy
 
2013-02-12 10:58:10 PM
It's not as simple as saying that the bill does or doesn't "cover men". VAWA is a bill that provides funding for a huge number of programs and institutions, some of which are gender-neutral in their approach and some of which are not.
 
2013-02-12 10:59:01 PM

Skyrmion: VAWA is a bill that provides funding for a huge number of programs and institutions, some of which are gender-neutral in their approach and some of which are not.


But if you don't vote for it, it means you are OK with violence against women.
 
2013-02-12 11:01:05 PM

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?

it is important to find some fault with liberals here, I know


For fark sake, I'm about as left of center as they come. If I'm going to call out the Bush rax cuts for being temporary because of political timing and use as leverage and naming some BS like the PATRIOT Act as "name only" patriotism, I'm going to call it out on "my side" as well because the bumper sticker politics do us all a disservice.
 
2013-02-12 11:02:08 PM

ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?


they get to schedule a war on women press conference again in 10 years?
 
2013-02-12 11:02:16 PM
"Tax cuts"

/damn phone
 
2013-02-12 11:02:49 PM
Why would the Senate wish to promote violence against women?
 
2013-02-12 11:03:35 PM

Oerath: Fark you Orrin! And you Mike! God I hate my farking stupid ass state!


Nice place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there.
 
2013-02-12 11:05:17 PM
► ramblinwreck Smartest Funniest
2013-02-12 09:16:11 PM

gadian: MyRandomName:

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.


Nah, by your response, I'm sure subby accomplished exactly what he / she set out to do. Which is to rile up semantic idiots like you. Win for subby. Also, it's just an easy headline to get out of the title. I can't hate subby for grabbing an easy one.
 
2013-02-12 11:05:31 PM

ramblinwreck: See the post below yours. Subby is illiterate or a troll. The bill doesn't cover only women, despite the title of the bill.


I'm not subby, but it's pretty obvious that it was simplified for the flow of the joke; if it was renamed to the Domestic Violence Act, it would have ended as "Still in favour of domestic violence." That's not trolling. If you want to see a real trolling headline, scroll down a few threads to the one about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

ramblinwreck: For fark sake, I'm about as left of center as they come. If I'm going to call out the Bush rax cuts for being temporary because of political timing and use as leverage and naming some BS like the PATRIOT Act as "name only" patriotism, I'm going to call it out on "my side" as well because the bumper sticker politics do us all a disservice.


He was talking about GoldSpider. You're just oversensitive, aren't you?
 
2013-02-12 11:06:02 PM

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?

it is important to find some fault with liberals here, I know


upload.wikimedia.org

Would beg to differ on your characterization.  The "liberal" sponsors of the VAWA come and go, but Crapo's been a sponsor every time it's come up for a vote
 
2013-02-12 11:07:31 PM

gadian: ► ramblinwreck Smartest Funniest
2013-02-12 09:16:11 PM

gadian: MyRandomName:

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.

Nah, by your response, I'm sure subby accomplished exactly what he / she set out to do. Which is to rile up semantic idiots like you. Win for subby. Also, it's just an easy headline to get out of the title. I can't hate subby for grabbing an easy one.


That's exactly what reading and understanding law is about...semantics. Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.
 
2013-02-12 11:10:46 PM
One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?
 
2013-02-12 11:12:49 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: ramblinwreck: See the post below yours. Subby is illiterate or a troll. The bill doesn't cover only women, despite the title of the bill.

I'm not subby, but it's pretty obvious that it was simplified for the flow of the joke; if it was renamed to the Domestic Violence Act, it would have ended as "Still in favour of domestic violence." That's not trolling. If you want to see a real trolling headline, scroll down a few threads to the one about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

ramblinwreck: For fark sake, I'm about as left of center as they come. If I'm going to call out the Bush rax cuts for being temporary because of political timing and use as leverage and naming some BS like the PATRIOT Act as "name only" patriotism, I'm going to call it out on "my side" as well because the bumper sticker politics do us all a disservice.

He was talking about GoldSpider. You're just oversensitive, aren't you?


And it seems like you're well versed on textbook feminist shaming tactics. This one would be "Charge of Hypersensitivity" (aka the crybaby charge).
 
2013-02-12 11:14:56 PM

ramblinwreck: Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.


weird, when the fark did I claim that
 
2013-02-12 11:15:31 PM

g4lt: Would beg to differ on your characterization.  The "liberal" sponsors of the VAWA come and go, but Crapo's been a sponsor every time it's come up for a vote


which liberals voted against the bill?
 
2013-02-12 11:17:05 PM

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.

weird, when the fark did I claim that


You didn't.
 
2013-02-12 11:18:01 PM

serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?


Let me repost my linkhttp://americas wire.org/drupal7/?q=content/law-enforcement-gaps-leave- native-women-vulnerable-rape-and-domestic-violence-1

and here is Johnny_Vegas link 'http://thehill.com/blogs/cong ress-blog/civil-rights/226743-vawa-tribal -provisions-are-constitutionally-soundThe epidemic of violence against women on tribal lands is staggering; 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes, 39% will experience domestic violence, and as a Department of Justice study found, non-Indians commit 88% of these heinous crimes. Tribal justice systems are the most appropriate entities to root out these criminals, yet they are the ones with tied hands-restricted by antiquated jurisdictional laws established the U.S. government limiting tribes from prosecuting non-Native criminals.
 
2013-02-12 11:21:48 PM

ramblinwreck: Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.

weird, when the fark did I claim that

You didn't.


Unless you're the subby...who either through ignorance or deliberate (and effective) means, misidentified a vote against the bill was only a vote against protecting female victims of domestic abuse.
 
2013-02-12 11:22:01 PM

ramblinwreck: And it seems like you're well versed on textbook feminist shaming tactics. This one would be "Charge of Hypersensitivity" (aka the crybaby charge).


I'm a woman, dumbass.
 
2013-02-12 11:23:36 PM

ramblinwreck: Unless you're the subby...who either through ignorance or deliberate (and effective) means, misidentified a vote against the bill was only a vote against protecting female victims of domestic abuse.


have you read a single farking post I have ever made about this topic, including the literally dozens I have made today and in this thread speficifally

I mean I know you haven't, it is a rhetorical question
 
2013-02-12 11:24:10 PM

serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?


Only if the tribe was a TERO tribe.  Since tribes are sovereign, if they don't want to follow state and local laws, they don't have to.  It's a nonsolution to a nonproblem in actual life though, as most tribes have a form of TERO on the books, and those that don't tend to have rather explicit laws forbidding rape, murder, and mayhem on tribal lands.
 
2013-02-12 11:24:23 PM

relcec: Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy! Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!

yes, pussies one and all for asking for equal protection of the law for EVERYONE, you know, justice.


Yes, idiots one and all for thinking men aren't protected by the same laws.  You know, Equal Protection Clause.
 
2013-02-12 11:27:32 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)
<b>John Cornyn (R-TX)</b>
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)



The legislation includes a provision, backed by a bipartisan group headed by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would speed up the analysis of DNA evidence in rape cases.

At least he got to vote against his own rider
 
2013-02-12 11:27:33 PM
yes, pussies one and all for asking for equal protection of the law for EVERYONE, you know, justice.

relcec still lying about VAWA, sky still blue
 
2013-02-12 11:28:45 PM

serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?


Reservations currently cannot prosecute non-native americans for crimes on indian reservations, unless congress delegates such powers to them - which this bill tries to do.  Those crimes fall under federal jurisdiction.  Which means that when those crimes go to court, they have to go to a federal court, which out west where a lot of reservations are, might be a few hours drive away.

What this means is that when a federal prosecutor takes a look at cases he can prosecute, he can pick from a couple murders, maybe some drugs dealing, maybe a nice organize crime case - or he can spend the time and money to ship in witnesses for a case of some asshole beating his girlfriend.  Understandably this particular category of crime usually falls through the cracks due to simple triage.

As to the 'concerns' that allowing tribes to prosecute non-Indians being unconstitutional - that case has already been settled in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe , where the Supreme Court said that it's legal as long as congress has told them it's OK to do so.
 
2013-02-12 11:31:20 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: ramblinwreck: And it seems like you're well versed on textbook feminist shaming tactics. This one would be "Charge of Hypersensitivity" (aka the crybaby charge).

I'm a woman, dumbass.


Uhhh yup. Your point? You used a "textbook" shaming tactic used by feminists. Does that help?
 
2013-02-12 11:31:53 PM

g4lt: serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?

Only if the tribe was a TERO tribe.  Since tribes are sovereign, if they don't want to follow state and local laws, they don't have to.  It's a nonsolution to a nonproblem in actual life though, as most tribes have a form of TERO on the books, and those that don't tend to have rather explicit laws forbidding rape, murder, and mayhem on tribal lands.


What does Tribal Equal rights office(What is the purpose of the TERO program?

The primary purpose of the TERO program is to enforce tribally enacted Indian Preference law to insure that Indian/Alaska Native people gain their rightful share to employment, training, contracting, subcontracting, and business opportunities on and near reservations and native villages.http://ctertero.org/faq.html#question"> have to do with this.
 
2013-02-12 11:32:04 PM

ramblinwreck: You used a "textbook" shaming tactic used by feminists


but what about MEN's rights a bloo blah bloo
 
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