Is Jeff Sessions' Face Red Today?

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I not only read what you wrote - I copied and pasted it - no chance for confusion there. If you want to re-write what you previously wrote, please do. I'm glad that you could see the errors I pointed out. But don't be so insecure as to try to mask YOUR error as MINE.
I copied and pasted VERBATIM!

But In your amended complaint you are again in error. Franken's amendment is limited in scope as are the previous provisions that require certain types of insurance, bonuses and many of these things that you attribute to "franken's argument" are already in place and were in place while Franken was still on SNL.

 

[veritas]

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.

If the US government awards contracts to a corporation, then they are bound by Federal jurisdiction. If not, then there is no reason to even enter into a contract on BEHALF of the American people and spend our money. Why should Halliburton et al get a free pass and not have to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us???

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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."

If you're arguing about this setting a precedent - the precedent has already been set, which is the point that Sen. Franken was making in the above quote. The argument could be used for whatever - like cutting highway funds to states that don't raise the drinking age. They did that, long before Sen. Franken did.

This is nothing new. There's no precedent being set - just a standard argument that politicians have been using forever. About this specific amendment, do you have any problem with it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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 apply to just Haliburton - they are used in the description (but not in the text) as example because of the case that fomented the amendment. I disagree with assessment of the constitutionality of the amendment and have so many who have passed these types of requirement before.

I'm amazed that anyone would support blocking a rape victim from seeking legal remedy. I hope ALL such people are defeated at the ballot box.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

If the US government awards contracts to a corporation, then they are bound by Federal jurisdiction. If not, then there is no reason to even enter into a contract on BEHALF of the American people and spend our money. Why should Halliburton et al get a free pass and not have to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us???

I agree completely, I'm fully in support of Franken's amendment.

 

[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.

I not only read what you wrote - I copied and pasted it - no chance for confusion there. If you want to re-write what you previously wrote, please do. I'm glad that you could see the errors I pointed out. But don't be so insecure as to try to mask YOUR error as MINE.
I copied and pasted VERBATIM!

But In your amended complaint you are again in error. Franken's amendment is limited in scope as are the previous provisions that require certain types of insurance, bonuses and many of these things that you attribute to "franken's argument" are already in place and were in place while Franken was still on SNL.

I see I have to write this very slowly and use words of one or two syllable.
I dont care about Franken's actual bill (amendment is more than 2 syllables so you wont understand it). I do care about his point of view (argument is more than 2 syllables) that says gov't can dictate any policy to any business through the contract process.

 

[The Rabbi]

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."

If you're arguing about this setting a precedent - the precedent has already been set, which is the point that Sen. Franken was making in the above quote. The argument could be used for whatever - like cutting highway funds to states that don't raise the drinking age. They did that, long before Sen. Franken did.

This is nothing new. There's no precedent being set - just a standard argument that politicians have been using forever. About this specific amendment, do you have any problem with it?

No, you are wrong. The precedent he specifically mentioned was a government to government issue. This is a gov to business issue. It is an expansion and intrusion and Sessions was right to call him on it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh, I see - NOW you say you were not commenting on Franken's amendment, while posting on a thread about Franken's amendment, and after having quoted Franken's amendment to set up your post and after describing the impact of Franken's amendment.

So anyone who can understand two syllable words can obviously understand that you suddenly - and without notification - shifted your arguyment from Franken's amendment to "point of view" which has not been discussed at all here outside the terms of HIS AMENDMENT????????

THAT is what you are trying to sell????????

And anyone who isn't buying is "language challenged" or something?????

Please tell me you are intelligent enough to come up with something better than this to rehabilitate your battered ego.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is a gov to business issue.

And countless of these are already in place as I noted before.

You're really not helping yourself much here.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Apparently Sessions depended upon arguments like these too - no wonder it only took a comedian to kick his ass.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

If you're arguing about this setting a precedent - the precedent has already been set, which is the point that Sen. Franken was making in the above quote. The argument could be used for whatever - like cutting highway funds to states that don't raise the drinking age. They did that, long before Sen. Franken did.

This is nothing new. There's no precedent being set - just a standard argument that politicians have been using forever. About this specific amendment, do you have any problem with it?

No, you are wrong. The precedent he specifically mentioned was a government to government issue. This is a gov to business issue. It is an expansion and intrusion and Sessions was right to call him on it.

So, you're arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to put any restrictions into contracts with private companies?

That's a rather terrifying thought.

 

[EriktheRed]

Max Cleland was smeared and eventually lost re-election over an issue like this. Nice to see how times have changed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Will the Franken Amendment apply to ACORN too?

 

[American Horse]

I'm amazed that anyone would support blocking a rape victim from seeking legal remedy. I hope ALL such people are defeated at the ballot box.

She had full capacity to pursue a legal remedy in crimnal court. She still has legal capacity against the individuals who assualted her in civil court. She seems to want to hold the company responsible for the rape, and she lost that ability when she agreed to accept arbitration in her original contract, which she accepted when she signed it. That had to have been the crux of Senator Sessions reasoning.

Does the Senate want to see arbitration set aside for lawsuits and by doing so only see trial attorneys involved in such? That last had to figure into Frankens singling out of KBR, since it was such a cheap shot.
And who would like that better than the trial attorneys bar?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Max Cleland was smeared and eventually lost re-election over an issue like this. Nice to see how times have changed.

LOL Calling someone a Librul is a smear?

LOL

 

[EriktheRed]

Max Cleland was smeared and eventually lost re-election over an issue like this. Nice to see how times have changed.

LOL Calling someone a Librul is a smear?

Not that your dumbass post really deserves a response, but...

Max Cleland lost the 2002 general election to Republican Saxby Chambliss. A key element in that loss was a negative ad that challenged Cleland's votes in Congress on the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.

The text of the ad is as follows:

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.
"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."
"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."
"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."

The issue in 2002 was civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill. The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it]

Max Cleland - SourceWatch

 

[nodoginnafight]

LOL Calling someone a Librul is a smear?

LOL

I think your mistake was in assuming that this poster or any other poster here was actually responding to, or acknowleding your inane sophomoric posts. This'll be my last time.

 

[EriktheRed]

Wonder what Sen. Inhofe thinks...



Inhofe calls Franken "a clown" - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

 

[Jay Canuck]

uh Frank....that looks like Meatloaf in Rio?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, I see - NOW you say you were not commenting on Franken's amendment, while posting on a thread about Franken's amendment, and after having quoted Franken's amendment to set up your post and after describing the impact of Franken's amendment.

So anyone who can understand two syllable words can obviously understand that you suddenly - and without notification - shifted your arguyment from Franken's amendment to "point of view" which has not been discussed at all here outside the terms of HIS AMENDMENT????????

THAT is what you are trying to sell????????

And anyone who isn't buying is "language challenged" or something?????

Please tell me you are intelligent enough to come up with something better than this to rehabilitate your battered ego.

That's correct. Thus the use of my word "argument" rather than "amendment." I realize they both begin with A and have more than 2 syllables. Probably what confused you. Glad it only took you three posts to figure that one out.