If "a victim, is a victim, is a victim", and "violence is
violence", then why the need to have it just for women? What about
protection for men from women? Spousal abuse and rape also happen to men
perpetrated by women. Why do we keep segmenting our laws? I thought the law
and justice were suppose to be blind?
[Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, for example, opposes a provision in the bill that
"grants tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native
Americans on tribal lands,"]Too bad. If you don't want to
be tried by Italian courts on rape charges, don't rape someone in Italy. If
you don't want to be tried in tribal courts on rape charges, don't
rape someone on tribal land. Rubio is just being pro-rapist.
@atl134You comment can be paraphrased as: "I am tolerant and anyone
who disagrees is a rapist". That mentality is exactly why I have no respect
for the hard left.Native American lands are NOT in Italy, but they are in
the USA; Tribal Courts do not have all the same constitutional protections as
federal courts.This version of VAWA is NOT the same as the bi-partisan law
originally co-sponsored by Orin Hatch. Senate Democrats deliberately
politicized it knowing that it would cause Republicans to question - allowing
the passive/aggressive left to play the phony "war on women" card.The truth is: (as Obama10 states) "a victim, is a victim, is a
victim&", and feminists crying victim while actually enjoying preference
is incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous.If you don't want to be
accused of sexism, then don't be a politically correct sexist.
@CIclaiming that alt is saying "I am tolerant and anyone who
disagrees is a rapist" is more of a straw man then a paraphrase. secondly Native American tribal lands are sovereign nations. thirdly
your need to label others as passive aggressive and intentionally misinterpret
what they say speaks more to your lack of a legitimate argument then does about
the people you are attacking. So lets try again can you give us an
argument against this bill that does not include comments about what you think
about the left and feminist. If there is a legitimate concern it should not be
@CIthe violence against women act was first enacted in 1994, Hatch
actually helped write and champion the VAWA in 1994 and its reauthorization
twice after that. So lets talk about the time line of this other law Hatch
proposed and why he really is opposing its reauthorization this time.
We should quickly draft a bill against violence against those between 5 feet 8
and 5 feet 9.5 wearing red or green shirts.I can find many examples
of people who have been attacked and are between 5 feet 8 and 5 feet 9.5 and
wearing red or green shirts.And dont even get me started about
protecting Boston Celtic fans, they have had thousands of violent crimes
committed against them.
I oppose it because it is the Federal government interfering with matters that
are of purely state concern. The Supreme Court already struck down
Congress's claim that the Commerce Clause is what gives them an enumerated
power in this area in Lopez when the Supreme Court struck down the first
Violence Against Women Act. This is the Federal government overstepping its
bounds into an area where states have always acted and where the Founders
clearly did not intend the Federal government to toil. This is an expansive
abuse of Federal power.
@atl134..."If you don't want to be tried in tribal courts on rape
charges, don't rape someone on tribal land."Really? What
about someone falsely accused? Do you really want to place that person's
(or your) fate in the hands of a system, without recourse, that can mandate a
conviction on someone who truly is innocent?
I absolutely despise this all-too-common leftist tactic for passing
controversial legislation: create a bill with a title & main content that no
one would oppose, then quietly slip in the real goal of passing some highly
controversial law that virtually EVERYONE would oppose.Like the 2013
Protection of Innocent Little Kittens Act from Decapitation of 2013. POlitical
suicide to oppose. Never mind that line 457 of the bill has two sentences that
give citizenship to little kittens.Just because a law is called
"Violence Against Women Act" does not - repeat, NOT - mean the entire
law is a good idea. Slipping in extremely controversial and totally unrelated
language giving fringe Native American secessionist activists their dream law is
just cynical and dishonest. And this should really be a Violence Against Human
Beings Act...but that would neuter the radical feminist goal of writing into law
their view that all violence against women is the result of eeeeevil men lording
it over women.
You can draw a lot of conclusions from the photo.
@Counter Intelligence"I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a
rapist".Not at all. I merely suggested that he's arguing on
behalf of rapists, not that he is one, and I wouldn't use that claim if
this was something that didn't have to do with a law relating to women who
are victims of sexual abuse/assault."Tribal Courts do not have
all the same constitutional protections as federal courts."Then
maybe they shouldn't commit crimes on tribal lands. There are actual cases
where men will bring women into tribal lands just to sexually assault them.
Native American women have the highest rates of being victims of sexual abuse (3
in 5)."Senate Democrats deliberately politicized it "Trying to help Native American women = politicization? I would've
thought it was basic human decency.@Simple Man"Do you
really want to place that person's (or your) fate in the hands of a system,
without recourse, that can mandate a conviction on someone who truly is
innocent?"So you believe that if a Russian citizen rapes an
American in Seattle or an American citizen rapes a Russian in Moscow both should
be tried in the US?
Re: HutteriteAmen to that. A Who's Who of conservative
@ciActually it is factually wrong to claim people would not have all their
constitutional rights in a tribal courts. The laws are very clear that they do
retain all their same rights.
-These republicans could not do any worse. They have already forgotten why
Romney lost and once more are going after minorities. -"Tribal
Courts do not have all the same constitutional protections as federal
courts." Simply isn't true. US v. Nice (1916) disproves that. One can
also appeal a Tribal court to the corresponding circuit court.
There is quite a difference between Native American lands and a sovereign
foreign nation. Let me enumerate them.1. I can tell when I cross into
another country. (Checkpoints, ports of entry, VISAs, etc..)2. If I run
into problems in a foreign country I can always call the US embassy.3.
Diplomatic relations with foreign nations can be a powerful tool in protecting a
U.S. Citizen.When all this is in place, then I would be a little
more comfortable giving up my constitutional rights when visiting.And,
@Atl, the issue is not about committing a crime while on tribal lands, but about
being accused of committing a crime while on tribal lands. Remember that whole
"Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Women in Utah just need to remember this until the next two elections when they
will have a chance to get rid of Orrin and Lee.
@Voice,To claim that the left are the only ones pulling this kind of trick
is disingenuous. As despicable as it is, both parties do it. Then, to top it
off, after they have clogged it up with a bunch of stuff we wouldn't
normally approve of, they throw their personal pet pork in the mix. SOP for
Thanks Voice of Reason, you've hit the nail on the head.Alt134
- If a person is residing on reservation land, then they have chosen to abide by
the native laws, otherwise state/federal jurisdiction should be applied.
I've been in too many places where you could be on reservation land and not
know it. There is not always a defined marking or signage. If there is a obvious
frequent offense on reservation land, perhaps it might be an option for the
state/federal judge to defer to the tribal courts. However, with that would come
a "two way street", which would mean the tribe would do likewise.
Neither group I suspect would go for it.Rape is a very serious
issue, but if controversial laws are put in place more pain would be generated
then justice served. Victims of this crime just want justice, not to ride the
judicial roller-coaster. Otherwise they just want to bury their pain and get on
with their lives, leaving the perpetrator free to commit again. We need solid
and straight forward laws, not political pay back.
Some of you are talking about this as if assault and rape and violence in this
place vs. that place and the more convenient crime scene for the perpetrator are
the equivalent to the discussion about dinner and appetizer and dessert in this
restaurant vs. that diner, and which is more convenient for the person taking
the initiative. I was not aware that there was a discussion of such an insane
notion going on. We do all agree, do we not, that these are crimes? I don't
believe that women, as a gender, would be specified if the primary victims were
not women vs. men; while certainly men are also victimized, no doubt women are a
large majority of the victims. It shouldn't take a lot of common sense to
figure out why. I could go into it. Or make it easy on yourself and do some
people-watching and see who looks more likely to be violent to whom. Yes, looks
can be deceiving but you get the idea, it's not all so far off the mark.
The DNews' unquestioning position of support to the right wing element in
our society is pathetic! Hatch and Lee are absolutely out of touch with the
needs of women, the underprivileged and the disadvantaged in the state of Utah.
It's incredible how unsympathetic all three (DNews, Hatch and
Lee) are to important issues.
MSNBC's unquestioning position of support to the left wing element in our
society is pathetic! Pelosi and Reid are absolutely out of touch with the needs
of our economy, the underprivileged and the disadvantaged in the United
States. It's incredible how unsympathetic all three (MSNBC,
Polosi and Reid) are to important issues.