Is Jeff Sessions' Face Red Today?

[nodoginnafight]

he he......whatever happened to Norm Coleman?

He's got to be feeling even worse than Sessions. He not only lost to the same comedian - he lost to a professional wrestler too !!!!!!

THAT has GOT to leave a mark.

 

[nodoginnafight]

anything to divert attention from the impotency of one of their 'Big Dogs" against the most junior comedian in the Senate.
Or maybe to divert attention from their "Big Dog's" attempt to shield rapists from prosecution.

It would be interesting to fully understand the background behind this vote. I've been around long enough to know that sometimes these votes have a much fuller explanation than what is being handed to us from the article in the Minneapolis Post.

"The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts," Sessions said. "That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate, certainly not without a lot of thought and care and the support of, at least the opinion of, the Department of Defense."

There were about 10 Republicans who agreed with Franken - even the ones who didn't were complimentary about the way he went about the business of introducing and promoting this amendment. He must be turning over a new leaf because I remember him as pretty condescending and mean-spirited (can you tell I'm not a Franken fan).

And although Sessions' "intrusion into private business" argument and the "binding arbitration is often more cost-effective and efficient than the courts" arguments are compelling for many, I think the fact that the government contracts are laden with intrusions such as types of insurance coverage, etc ... and the fact that access to legal redress is such a fundamental part of our society, Franken's amendment was pretty popular.

 

[veritas]

I like Franken.

As to rewriting contracts, if a contract or any part of a contract is unlawful, the contract is null and void. Every person has a right to due process. A contract voiding that right is therefore unlawful. Being raped is not akin to a non-compete clause. As far as "loser pays", the contractors are buying off victims as it is, and the victims want actual prosecutions. This should be a very conservative issue, a no brainer.

I don't think there are any conservatives left.

 

[Jay Canuck]

he he......whatever happened to Norm Coleman?

He's got to be feeling even worse than Sessions. He not only lost to the same comedian - he lost to a professional wrestler too !!!!!!

THAT has GOT to leave a mark.

no doubt....poor bastard!

 

[N4mddissent]

Al Franken: the Face of the Modern Democrat Party

Yeah, run with that

Yes, he was a comedian. He was also a Harvard grad. Reagan was an actor. It has no bearing. Their competence should be judged on their own merit.

Here's the argument he made against Sessions. Agree or disagree, it is a reasoned, coherent argument based upon the Constitution.

"Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors — what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

 

[Jay Canuck]

I like Jesse Ventura!

"Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here. This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me!"

 

[American Horse]

anything to divert attention from the impotency of one of their 'Big Dogs" against the most junior comedian in the Senate.
Or maybe to divert attention from their "Big Dog's" attempt to shield rapists from prosecution.

It would be interesting to fully understand the background behind this vote. I've been around long enough to know that sometimes these votes have a much fuller explanation than what is being handed to us from the article in the Minneapolis Post.

"The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts," Sessions said. "That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate, certainly not without a lot of thought and care and the support of, at least the opinion of, the Department of Defense."

There were about 10 Republicans who agreed with Franken - even the ones who didn't were complimentary about the way he went about the business of introducing and promoting this amendment. He must be turning over a new leaf because I remember him as pretty condescending and mean-spirited (can you tell I'm not a Franken fan).

And although Sessions' "intrusion into private business" argument and the "binding arbitration is often more cost-effective and efficient than the courts" arguments are compelling for many, I think the fact that the government contracts are laden with intrusions such as types of insurance coverage, etc ... and the fact that access to legal redress is such a fundamental part of our society, Franken's amendment was pretty popular.

Frankens Amendment:
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, he was a comedian. He was also a Harvard grad. Reagan was an actor. It has no bearing. Their competence should be judged on their own merit.

Here's the argument he made against Sessions. Agree or disagree, it is a reasoned, coherent argument based upon the Constitution.

"Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors — what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Reagan was also a two term governor of California. He had been on the political scene for twenty years.
Franken was a hack comedian and then decided to get into politics after bombing out on talk radio.
Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.
Massive intrusion of government power where it doesn't belong. That's our Dems for ya.

 

[N4mddissent]

Yes, he was a comedian. He was also a Harvard grad. Reagan was an actor. It has no bearing. Their competence should be judged on their own merit.

Here's the argument he made against Sessions. Agree or disagree, it is a reasoned, coherent argument based upon the Constitution.

"Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors — what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Reagan was also a two term governor of California. He had been on the political scene for twenty years.
Franken was a hack comedian and then decided to get into politics after bombing out on talk radio.
Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.
Massive intrusion of government power where it doesn't belong. That's our Dems for ya.

And still has nothing to do with judging someone on their merits. 10 republicans agreed with Franken, but his argument must be incorrect since a guy with scat humor on the level of a 12 year old for his avatar says so.

Seriously, I have trouble taking anything you say seriously.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, he was a comedian. He was also a Harvard grad. Reagan was an actor. It has no bearing. Their competence should be judged on their own merit.

Here's the argument he made against Sessions. Agree or disagree, it is a reasoned, coherent argument based upon the Constitution.

"Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors — what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Reagan was also a two term governor of California. He had been on the political scene for twenty years.
Franken was a hack comedian and then decided to get into politics after bombing out on talk radio.
Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.
Massive intrusion of government power where it doesn't belong. That's our Dems for ya.

And still has nothing to do with judging someone on their merits. 10 republicans agreed with Franken, but his argument must be incorrect since a guy with scat humor on the level of a 12 year old for his avatar says so.

Seriously, I have trouble taking anything you say seriously.

The merit of a person is directly tied to his achievements. You cannot compare Ronald Reagan's achievements as actor's guild president, speaker, and governor with a failed SNL comedian.
I am glad you hate my avatar. I am glad you don't value what I write. If you did I would have to reconsider my whole approach. People like you never get it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A contract voiding that right is therefore unlawful.

No - A contract CAN bind two parties to arbitration rather than courts.

Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Agreed

 

[nodoginnafight]

People like you never get it.

Maybe they get vaccinated????????

 

[The Rabbi]

Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Agreed

Please read what I wrote rather than what you wish I wrote.
Franken's argument could be extended indefinitely into every area of corporate governance. So the gov't could decide that companies that give their execs use of a personal jet can't get contracts. Or companies that don't operate a closed shop. Or any other thing they want. It is a huge intrustion into private enterprise. And the worst part is it gives the gov't fewer providers to choose from, increasing cost and decreasing quality.

 

[American Horse]

It would be interesting to fully understand the background behind this vote. I've been around long enough to know that sometimes these votes have a much fuller explanation than what is being handed to us from the article in the Minneapolis Post.

"The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts," Sessions said. "That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate, certainly not without a lot of thought and care and the support of, at least the opinion of, the Department of Defense."

There were about 10 Republicans who agreed with Franken - even the ones who didn't were complimentary about the way he went about the business of introducing and promoting this amendment. He must be turning over a new leaf because I remember him as pretty condescending and mean-spirited (can you tell I'm not a Franken fan).

And although Sessions' "intrusion into private business" argument and the "binding arbitration is often more cost-effective and efficient than the courts" arguments are compelling for many, I think the fact that the government contracts are laden with intrusions such as types of insurance coverage, etc ... and the fact that access to legal redress is such a fundamental part of our society, Franken's amendment was pretty popular.

Frankens Amendment:
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

I'm amazed that a majority of US Senators would vote for this amendment. As anyone can see it singles out one individual company, and might amount to a "bill of attainder". I hope that Senator Byrd elected not to vote because of constitutional reasons rather than for absence. The Republicans who voted for it are cowards, or haven't read the constitution, which seems to be the case with Franken. One more reason to throw out our own Senator Lugar next opportunity (R-Indiana)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Agreed

Please read what I wrote rather than what you wish I wrote.
Franken's argument could be extended indefinitely into every area of corporate governance. So the gov't could decide that companies that give their execs use of a personal jet can't get contracts. Or companies that don't operate a closed shop. Or any other thing they want. It is a huge intrustion into private enterprise. And the worst part is it gives the gov't fewer providers to choose from, increasing cost and decreasing quality.

Or you could actually read the amendment.

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Feel free to show how that could result in your above speculation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There were about 10 Republicans who agreed with Franken - even the ones who didn't were complimentary about the way he went about the business of introducing and promoting this amendment. He must be turning over a new leaf because I remember him as pretty condescending and mean-spirited (can you tell I'm not a Franken fan).

And although Sessions' "intrusion into private business" argument and the "binding arbitration is often more cost-effective and efficient than the courts" arguments are compelling for many, I think the fact that the government contracts are laden with intrusions such as types of insurance coverage, etc ... and the fact that access to legal redress is such a fundamental part of our society, Franken's amendment was pretty popular.

Frankens Amendment:
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

I'm amazed that a majority of US Senators would vote for this amendment. As anyone can see it singles out one individual company, and might amount to a "bill of attainder". I hope that Senator Byrd elected not to vote because of constitutional reasons rather than for absence. The Republicans who voted for it are cowards, or haven't read the constitution, which seems to be the case with Franken. One more reason to throw out our own Senator Lugar next opportunity (R-Indiana)

The amendment does not single out a single company. That is not the text of the amendment - this is:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

 

[veritas]

A contract voiding that right is therefore unlawful.

No - A contract CAN bind two parties to arbitration rather than courts.

Based on Franken's argument the government could intrude into anycorporate governance issue.

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Agreed

Not for criminal acts. The state is always the arbiter to criminal acts and has standing. That's why we have prosecutors.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A contract voiding that right is therefore unlawful.

No - A contract CAN bind two parties to arbitration rather than courts.

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

I'd rather have a comedian who can make arguments of this nature, than a Michelle Bachman whose arguments are a joke.

Agreed

Not for criminal acts. The state is always a party to criminal acts and has standing. That's why we have prosecutors.

Not so, if the offenses take place outside the jurisdiction of US courts.

 

[The Rabbi]

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

Agreed

Please read what I wrote rather than what you wish I wrote.
Franken's argument could be extended indefinitely into every area of corporate governance. So the gov't could decide that companies that give their execs use of a personal jet can't get contracts. Or companies that don't operate a closed shop. Or any other thing they want. It is a huge intrustion into private enterprise. And the worst part is it gives the gov't fewer providers to choose from, increasing cost and decreasing quality.

Or you could actually read the amendment.

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Feel free to show how that could result in your above speculation.

Try reading what I actually wrote versus what you think I wrote.
I get that from here:

"Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors — what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

 

[The Rabbi]

No - A contract CAN bind two parties to arbitration rather than courts.

No - based on Franken's amendmend companies that restrict access to the courts for charges of rape, assualt, and very specific acts cannot receive government contracts. Period.

Agreed

Not for criminal acts. The state is always a party to criminal acts and has standing. That's why we have prosecutors.

Not so, if the offenses take place outside the jurisdiction of US courts.

Only for the criminal aspect of the case. Not for the civil aspect.