quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
No women in the Senate voted against the act. In fact, it was cosponsored by all but one of them.

Which proves nothing.

Which proves that among women, the people whose lot the legislation was designed to improve, the legislation enjoyed wide support.
I don't know if there are any GOP women Senators, but if there are, and they voted for the legislation, that would seem to be pretty significant.

quote:

quote:

DesideriScuri
Every single one of them may have had similar, and valid, reasons to oppose the reauthorization. Rather than trying to understand why, you're content to just bash them with opposing a bill title. If any one of them is a misogynist, and that is why he opposed it, I'll join you in bashing them for it.

DS, is Rubio on the record as highlighting the provisions of the VAWA that extended protection to same sex relationships among the reasons for his opposition? If it was, that would be, in my book, quite significant too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
greg gutfeld was recently talking about an author who wrote a book highlighting similar misconceptions---the left looks at the right and judges them wrongly based on a mischaracterization of their motives/intent as opposed to simply disagreeing with their judgment in any particular instance.
if Rubio and paul, and others voted against the act---its because they are misogynist, think women are lesser humans, hate gays, etc---and not because the bill itself contained elements were wasteful, ineffectual, spurious, over-reaching, or that it was redundant, etc.
and the people who created that photo with all the republicans on it and the simplistic heading associated with it are taking advantage of that principle.

I don't think it's a characteristic of the way our political system works at the moment, and not limited to one side or the other. I'm certain that there have been bills brought to vote by the GOP that had one of two possible outcomes: passage, or the ability to use "no" votes against their opponents in an election cycle (with the intent primarily to be the latter). Wasn't it the GOP that accused Democrats that were wavering towards non-support of the Patriot Act as "unpatriotic?" I'm willing to bet that many people voted for the Iraq war simply to not be castigated for not supporting it, and being accused of being unpatriotic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
greg gutfeld was recently talking about an author who wrote a book highlighting similar misconceptions---the left looks at the right and judges them wrongly based on a mischaracterization of their motives/intent as opposed to simply disagreeing with their judgment in any particular instance.
if Rubio and paul, and others voted against the act---its because they are misogynist, think women are lesser humans, hate gays, etc---and not because the bill itself contained elements were wasteful, ineffectual, spurious, over-reaching, or that it was redundant, etc.
and the people who created that photo with all the republicans on it and the simplistic heading associated with it are taking advantage of that principle.

I don't think it's a characteristic of the way our political system works at the moment, and not limited to one side or the other. I'm certain that there have been bills brought to vote by the GOP that had one of two possible outcomes: passage, or the ability to use "no" votes against their opponents in an election cycle (with the intent primarily to be the latter). Wasn't it the GOP that accused Democrats that were wavering towards non-support of the Patriot Act as "unpatriotic?" I'm willing to bet that many people voted for the Iraq war simply to not be castigated for not supporting it, and being accused of being unpatriotic.

That seems to be the narrative but I believe it is mostly a false narrative (like with so many other highly politicized historical misinformation)
A quick Google search shows that "the Patriot Act" was cosponsored by a Dem and a Rep, passed almost unanimously and I saw no documentation of anyone calling anyone else unpatriotic, or making any threats to
It was right after 9/11, the country was very united, and there was a sense of urgency to find out if there were any more terrorist, er, militant, er, uh, workplace violence cells in the country

quote:

American Indians are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual assault crimes compared to all other races, and one in three Indian women reports having been raped during her lifetitime.

quote:


Starting Saturday, tribes can claim jurisdiction over non-Native men who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim who lives on tribal land. Until now, that jurisdiction has fallen to federal or state law enforcement, who are often hours away from reservations and lack the resources to respond. The result has effectively allowed non-Native abusers immunity from punishment.
For the first time, tribal law enforcement will now have the ability to intervene.
"I want to encourage all tribal governments to get this law on their books," said Juana Majel of the National Congress of American Indians. "On most reservations, there are a handful of bad actors who have figured out how to slip between jurisdictional boundaries. They need to get the message. If they continue to assault our women, we will prosecute and put them in jail."
There are epidemic levels of domestic violence on tribal lands. Three out of five Native women have been assaulted in their lifetimes, and 34 percent will be raped, according to the National Congress of American Indians. Getting to the heart of the VAWA provision, 59 percent of assaults against Native women take place at or near a private residence, and, as of 2010, 59 percent of Native women were married to non-Native men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
VAWA 2013 had 61 cosponsors, plus its primary sponsor, Patrick Leahey. And passed with 78 votes in the Senate, including affirmative votes from each of the 20 female Senators in the 113th Congress.
I believe that shows overwhelming bipartisanship. Enough to actually override a Presidential Veto (not that that was necessary, obviously).
When such bipartisanship exists, it only makes sense to question why anyone would vote against such a provenly effective bill for victim's rights.
Having been a victim of same-sex domestic violence, I can say that Rubio, as one of my two Senators, failed as a human being by voting against VAWA.
Because some of the funds would now be allocated to protecting victims of date rape and seeking justice for those crimes?
Or because American Indian women don't deserve the same advocacy and justice?
http://www.justice.gov/ovw/tribal-communities

quote:

American Indians are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual assault crimes compared to all other races, and one in three Indian women reports having been raped during her lifetitime.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6819526

quote:

Starting Saturday, tribes can claim jurisdiction over non-Native men who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim who lives on tribal land. Until now, that jurisdiction has fallen to federal or state law enforcement, who are often hours away from reservations and lack the resources to respond. The result has effectively allowed non-Native abusers immunity from punishment.
For the first time, tribal law enforcement will now have the ability to intervene.
"I want to encourage all tribal governments to get this law on their books," said Juana Majel of the National Congress of American Indians. "On most reservations, there are a handful of bad actors who have figured out how to slip between jurisdictional boundaries. They need to get the message. If they continue to assault our women, we will prosecute and put them in jail."
There are epidemic levels of domestic violence on tribal lands. Three out of five Native women have been assaulted in their lifetimes, and 34 percent will be raped, according to the National Congress of American Indians. Getting to the heart of the VAWA provision, 59 percent of assaults against Native women take place at or near a private residence, and, as of 2010, 59 percent of Native women were married to non-Native men.

Edited to fix quotes.

quote:

February 25, 2013

Dear ____________:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013 (S. 47). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

S. 47 would reauthorize and expand a variety of grant programs aimed at countering domestic violence through 2018. While countering violent crimes is a cause that enjoys universal support, the debate over S. 47 has become contentious due to the inclusion of a variety of controversial new elements to the bill. The legislation would increase benefits available under VAWA to specifically include victims of stalking and “cyberstalking,” as well as same-sex couples, and illegal immigrants who are victims of any sort of violence.

In addition, much of the grant funding provided under VAWA does not directly benefit victims of domestic violence, but goes toward domestic violence research, as well as lobbying for specific state and local law enforcement policies, such as mandatory arrest laws when responding to domestic violence incidents. A variety of studies have shown that the enactment of mandatory arrest laws can actually aggravate further domestic violence. In states where such policies have been enacted, intimate partner homicides have been seen to increase by as much as 60 percent.

Finally, S. 47 expands provisions related to domestic violence on tribal lands, and expands tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Native Americans. Historically, tribal courts have had jurisdiction over members of their tribe, and moreover, defendants are not constitutionally entitled to the full protections of the Bill of Rights in tribal court.

I am against violence against women, children, men-anyone. Under our Constitution, states are given the responsibility for prosecution of those violent crimes. They don’t need Washington telling them how to provide services and prosecute criminals in these cases. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal law. As written, S. 47 muddles the lines between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement.

The Senate defeated a number of helpful amendments to S. 47, including one offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) that would have more quickly resolved rape cases by reducing unnecessary duplications and overlap within Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) grant programs. The amendment would have required DOJ to consolidate some of the overlapping programs identified by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), and use at least $600 million of the funds saved to support reducing the backlog of rape kits. Doing so would help bring criminals to justice. Unfortunately, the amendment (S.Amdt 15) failed by a vote of 46-53. The Senate proceeded to pass S. 47 on Feb. 12, 2012, by a vote of 78-22. I voted against it. It now awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.

Once more, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance in the future. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator

quote:

What crimes will be covered?

Covered offenses will be determined by tribal law. But tribes' criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians will be limited to the following, as defined in VAWA 2013:

Domestic violence;
Dating violence; and
Criminal violations of protection orders.
What crimes will not be covered?

The following crimes will generally not be covered:

Crimes committed outside of Indian country;
Crimes between two non-Indians;
Crimes between two strangers, including sexual assaults;
Crimes committed by a person who lacks sufficient ties to the tribe, such as living or working on its reservation; and
Child abuse or elder abuse that does not involve the violation of a protection order.

...

What rights will defendants have under the new law?

A tribe must:

Protect the rights of defendants under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which largely tracks the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, including the right to due process.
Protect the rights of defendants described in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, by providing:
Effective assistance of counsel for defendants;
Free, appointed, licensed attorneys for indigent defendants;
Law-trained tribal judges who are also licensed to practice law;
Publicly available tribal criminal laws and rules; and
Recorded criminal proceedings.
Include a fair cross-section of the community in jury pools and not systematically exclude non-Indians.
Inform defendants ordered detained by a tribal court of their right to file federal habeas corpus petitions.

quote:

Sentencing Limitation: The Indian Civil Rights Act ((25 U.S.C. § 1301 (Definitions); § 1302 (Constitutional rights); § 1303 (Habeas corpus)) provides that tribal courts cannot “impose for conviction of any one offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term of one year or a fine of $5,000 or both.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
http://www.justice.gov/tribal/violence-against-women-act-vawa-reauthorization-2013-0

quote:

What crimes will be covered?
Covered offenses will be determined by tribal law. But tribes' criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians will be limited to the following, as defined in VAWA 2013:
Domestic violence;
Dating violence; and
Criminal violations of protection orders.
What crimes will not be covered?
The following crimes will generally not be covered:
Crimes committed outside of Indian country;
Crimes between two non-Indians;
Crimes between two strangers, including sexual assaults;
Crimes committed by a person who lacks sufficient ties to the tribe, such as living or working on its reservation; and
Child abuse or elder abuse that does not involve the violation of a protection order.
...
What rights will defendants have under the new law?
A tribe must:
Protect the rights of defendants under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which largely tracks the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, including the right to due process.
Protect the rights of defendants described in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, by providing:
Effective assistance of counsel for defendants;
Free, appointed, licensed attorneys for indigent defendants;
Law-trained tribal judges who are also licensed to practice law;
Publicly available tribal criminal laws and rules; and
Recorded criminal proceedings.
Include a fair cross-section of the community in jury pools and not systematically exclude non-Indians.
Inform defendants ordered detained by a tribal court of their right to file federal habeas corpus petitions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Also:
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm

quote:

Sentencing Limitation: The Indian Civil Rights Act ((25 U.S.C. § 1301 (Definitions); § 1302 (Constitutional rights); § 1303 (Habeas corpus)) provides that tribal courts cannot “impose for conviction of any one offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term of one year or a fine of $5,000 or both.”

quote:

I am against violence against women, children, men-anyone. Under our Constitution, states are given the responsibility for prosecution of those violent crimes. They don’t need Washington telling them how to provide services and prosecute criminals in these cases. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal law. As written, S. 47 muddles the lines between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Right. I did read what I posted. I also checked wiki to see just what the Indian Civil Rights Act did entail.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

quote:

VAWA 2013 recognizes tribes' inherent power to exercise "special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction" (SDVCJ) over certain defendants, regardless of their Indian or non-Indian status, who commit acts of domestic violence or dating violence or violate certain protection orders in Indian country.

quote:

Yes, tribes are free to participate, or not. The authority of U.S. Attorneys (and state/local prosecutors, where they have jurisdiction) to prosecute crimes in Indian country remains unchanged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

VAWA 2013 had 61 cosponsors, plus its primary sponsor, Patrick Leahey. And passed with 78 votes in the Senate, including affirmative votes from each of the 20 female Senators in the 113th Congress.

I believe that shows overwhelming bipartisanship. Enough to actually override a Presidential Veto (not that that was necessary, obviously).

When such bipartisanship exists, it only makes sense to question why anyone would vote against such a provenly effective bill for victim's rights.

Having been a victim of same-sex domestic violence, I can say that Rubio, as one of my two Senators, failed as a human being by voting against VAWA.

Because some of the funds would now be allocated to protecting victims of date rape and seeking justice for those crimes?

Or because American Indian women don't deserve the same advocacy and justice?

http://www.justice.gov/ovw/tribal-communities

quote:

American Indians are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual assault crimes compared to all other races, and one in three Indian women reports having been raped during her lifetitime.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6819526

quote:


Starting Saturday, tribes can claim jurisdiction over non-Native men who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or who violate a protection order against a victim who lives on tribal land. Until now, that jurisdiction has fallen to federal or state law enforcement, who are often hours away from reservations and lack the resources to respond. The result has effectively allowed non-Native abusers immunity from punishment.
For the first time, tribal law enforcement will now have the ability to intervene.
"I want to encourage all tribal governments to get this law on their books," said Juana Majel of the National Congress of American Indians. "On most reservations, there are a handful of bad actors who have figured out how to slip between jurisdictional boundaries. They need to get the message. If they continue to assault our women, we will prosecute and put them in jail."
There are epidemic levels of domestic violence on tribal lands. Three out of five Native women have been assaulted in their lifetimes, and 34 percent will be raped, according to the National Congress of American Indians. Getting to the heart of the VAWA provision, 59 percent of assaults against Native women take place at or near a private residence, and, as of 2010, 59 percent of Native women were married to non-Native men.

Edited to fix quotes.

quote:

...audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. young. He is very motivational. He has a powerful story.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Hunter, it's hard to run for President when you're on the wrong side of history.

Sanity - Hispanic voters are not going to jump ship without real & effective immigration reform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

No women in the Senate voted against the act. In fact, it was cosponsored by all but one of them.

Which proves nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Hunter, it's hard to run for President when you're on the wrong side of history.

Sanity - Hispanic voters are not going to jump ship without real & effective immigration reform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

No women in the Senate voted against the act. In fact, it was cosponsored by all but one of them.

Which proves nothing.

Not to mention isn't true according to this link.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-house-senate-votes

But I can understand why they would want it to look like it's all men, it seems to be sop to paint the right as a bunch of bitter old white men who are at war with women, immigrants, blacks and anyone else the left thinks is gullible enough to buy their bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

No women in the Senate voted against the act. In fact, it was cosponsored by all but one of them.

Which proves nothing.

Not to mention isn't true according to this link.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/violence-against-women-act-reauthorization-house-senate-votes

But I can understand why they would want it to look like it's all men, it seems to be sop to paint the right as a bunch of bitter old white men who are at war with women, immigrants, blacks and anyone else the left thinks is gullible enough to buy their bullshit.