Reply With Quote
This guy is a joke.
..gets a little testy when asked about his vote on the Franken Amendment..
Answer the question John....Why did you grant immunity to Blackwater for rape?
This guy is a joke.
It was never a secret that John Cornyn is a blockhead. He wants Halliburton to continue to enjoy immunity from US law, after being caught out covering up rape.
Classy.
How did Kay Bailey vote?
Did any woman vote no in the Senate?
no, it was the Old White Repug All-Male Misogynists Club.
LOL @ assualt!
She had it coming.
She was asking for it.
Boys will be boys.
A rape once in a while to show them who's boss.
Same old lies. I'm glad my Senator voted the right way on something ridiculous like this
What's a lie?
Being against the Franken amendment means somehow your either for women being sexually assaulted or you are somehow in the pockets of big defense companies.
What principle was upheld here?
The principle of voting against anything proposed by a D. His opponent can run the ad: "Cornyn only voted with the R's 95% of the time. As your senator, I'd make sure to make that 100%"
why can't he just say "i don't where i eat" i might semi-respect him if he did...
Why vote for this? What problem does it fix?
It probably wouldn't be enforced.
The macho assholes who run these mercenary corps ain't got no repsect for the law or wimmen.
But the Repugs really know how to win the female vote.
Gee... I don't know. The problem of a women being gang raped and not having her day in court to sue.
Ms. Jones can sue and she is suing. The problem is that she doesn't have standing in any criminal court.
I thought it was both.
The problem is that Halliburtons contractors are immune to US law. Ms. Jones fell into a black hole. No criminal court has jurisdiction in her case, apparently.
Care to show me what she signed to back that propaganda up?
How will this amendment change that?
Gee...I don't know. How does this amendment change that?
I'll admit to being fairly ignorant about this situation, but it sounds -- from what I've read -- that her tort claims arising from the rape charge were referred to arbitration. Again, I'll admit that I may be misunderstanding that.
I think the amendment doesn't do much -- although I think it does good work -- if it extends only to civil claims/criminal complaints concerning rape in this context; if it would extend to claims for personal injury that would give rise to either civil or criminal liability (and it may -- I don't know), it would be a meaningful and significant change in the law.
Personally, I think the notion of an arbitration provision that could conceivably apply to personal injuries is absurdly unfair and should be contrary to public policy.
I don't think the amendment has anything to do with the criminal side of the girl's rape case. My understanding of the case was she wanted to sue in court and not go through the arbitration contract she signed. A AG or DA is not hindered by their ability to prosecute in a criminal court from the arbitration.
Thing is, such agreements cannot shield an employer from breaking the law.
If that's all it did, we would all be for it. It does no such think however. Part (b) of the amendment makes almost certain all future DoD contracts will go to corporations of other flags. Boeing is screwed, Airbus wins. Hands down.
There are good reasons for an employer to require such things. This keeps cases dealing with proprietary information and legal trade secrets from being discussed in open court. I have signed such agreements with most of my employers. These agreements do not protect a corporation from whistle blowing, or breaking the law.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
