30 Republican Senators [Updated]

Map of the crazy (6.00 / 7)

---

by: stomv @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 10:28:51 AM CDT

Map of the male GOP not-in-this-case crazy (6.00 / 1)

---

by: stomv @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 14:55:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maddow covers it (0.00 / 0)

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 03:10:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All male revue... (0.00 / 0)

All of 'em male... well... except for Lindsay Graham...  

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:09:16 AM CDT

since you're counting (3.00 / 1)

how many male senators voted for the amendment?

Your homophobic dig at Huckleberry Graham is over the top.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 14:59:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What are you implying? (0.00 / 0)

That these Senators voted in favor of the rape and kidnapping of women?  That's the implication.  And you conveniently hide in asterisk form the 5th Circuit's denial of arbitration of the plaintiff's tort claim, i.e., she can sue her employer.

Furthermore, in my reading of the summary, the Senate bill (a) singles out Halliburton and KBR, and (b) interferes with contracts, both of which likely make this legislation unconstitutional:

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.

Bill of attainder?  Interference with and impairment of contracts?  Try Article 1 Section 9 and 10 of the US Constitution.

---

by: bostonshepherd @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 14:30:26 PM CDT

Your impliciation, not hers (0.00 / 0)

After reading, "That these Senators voted in favor of the rape and kidnapping of women?", I carefully re-read the post.  There is no implication, there is an outright assertion of votes against a ban.  Your summary issue is interesting, however.  The link to the bill doesn't seem to be working so I can't evaluate your quote.  What exactly is the legal weight of the summary vs the actual legislative language and does mentioning the specific party only in the summary a sufficient condition?

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 14:46:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

His (0.00 / 0)

My comment about their having brought shame to my gender is because I share the gender with them. They have made us look bad.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 15:11:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Appologies. (0.00 / 0)

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 18:01:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessary (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, anyway.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 18:21:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

IANAL (6.00 / 3)

Please explain to me why a client (the US Gov) isn't permitted to avoid contracts with contractors (Halli, KBR, et al) who treat their employees in ways the client doesn't find acceptable.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 14:49:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Singles, or plurals? (6.00 / 2)

The amendment names KBR Halliburton, but does not single them out. Here, it's in the bit you quote: "...or any other contracting party if such contractor..."

As for "hiding" the appeals court decision - nonsense. If I was going to hide it, I wouldn't have put it in the post at all. It's peripheral to the point of the post, which is that 30 Republican Senators have no problem with a company attempting to deny employees their Constitutional access to the courts, even when those employees have suffered horrendous treatment. You're with the 30 Senators, apparently.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 15:01:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here is the text of the amendment (6.00 / 1)

Since the Thomas search results in the link have expired, here is the text of Franken's amendment:

  SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

   On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

   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.

[Page: S10070]  GPO's PDF

   (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 15:08:12 PM CDT

Let's ask the lawyers (0.00 / 0)

Franken's amendment holds any government contractor accountable by banning "Federal funds going to any company that attempts enforcement of binding arbitration clauses in cases of sexual or civil rights abuse." In other words, they can't use use the arbitration clause in their employment contract to duck accountability for sexual and civil rights abuses.  

Since the incident occurred in Iraq where US sovereign law was not enforce, no criminal case could be brought against the alleged gang rapists.

If the Jamie Leigh Jones case happened on US soil under US sovereign law would the arbitration clause in her employment agreement have been upheld and thereby block a criminal prosecution and/or a civil suit by her?

Jamie Leigh Jones sued for civil damages back in the US and the courts found she could despite the arbitration agreement. I don't know the courts reasoning for that.  Do you?

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 15:12:23 PM CDT

Republicans for Rape! (6.00 / 3)

http://www.republicansforrape....

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 15:44:09 PM CDT

From now on, I'll call them Rape-publicans (2.50 / 2)

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans" - Sen. John Kerry

---

by: Syarzhuk @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 09:35:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's all this about? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure I understand what all this is about. A criminal charge is never subject to arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act applies to "maritime transactions" and "contracts evidencing a transaction involving commerce." When an employer signs a contract with an employee requiring arbitration, that hardly binds the government with respect to criminal charges.

In general, I think federal courts routinely hold that civil rights claims of one sort or another can be subject to arbitration if they are within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement. I don't have any expertise in this area, but I'm looking at the Digest (25TK146, for you lawyers out there), and I see headnotes like this:

Female employee failed to establish that Congress, in enacting Title VII, intended to preclude arbitration of Title VII claims, and employee's claims for sexual harassment and gender discrimination were thus subject to arbitration as provided in her employment application. Mago v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 956 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1992)

Arbitration clauses in employment contract were sufficiently broad to cover disputes about payment allegedly due and discriminatory discharge in violation of Title VII; one section of contract provided for arbitration of "any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to...the amount of salary compensation, severance, or other similar amount owing," and another section calling for arbitration of any dispute or controversy "arising out of or relating to" employment agreement picked up employee's contention that her discharge was discriminatory. Oblix, Inc. v. Winiecki, 374 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2004)

Former employee's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against employer fell within scope of parties' arbitration agreement, where agreement defined "covered claims" as including "[e]mployment discrimination and harassment claims," as well as "[r]etaliation claims for legally protected activity and/or for whistleblowing." Gonzalez v. GE Group Adminstrators, Inc., 321 F.Supp.2d 165 (D. Mass. 2004)

Of course, there are various defenses to enforcement of an arbitration clause, e.g., that it was procurred by fraud or duress, that the parties had unequal bargaining power, or whatever, but in general, I don't see why civil claims like this can't be arbitrable.

That being said, I'm not sure why it's disreputable to have opposed the Franken amendment. But maybe someone has a good case to make. It seems to me that if you think that claims of sexual harrassment in the workplace should not be arbitrable, then the thing to do is to amend the FAA, not to make particular rules for these contractors.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 16:02:55 PM CDT

Sexual harrasment... (6.00 / 2)

...and "drugged, held captive, and repeatedly raped" aren't really the same thing.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 16:32:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

...hasn't the court already held that the claims of assault and battery, false imprisonment, etc., aren't related to the employment contract and thus are not arbitrable? It seems to me that what the Franken amendment does is add to that list the Title VII claims.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 16:37:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Added to the list (6.00 / 1)

So you say that the Franken Amendment adds rape to the list of Title VII claims and you also ask above why is it disreputable to oppose the Franken amendment?  

Opposing the addition of something as obvious as rape to the Title VII claims seems like a fairly disreputable action.  In fact, I find "disreputable" to be a polite way to put it. No?

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 18:00:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The amendment would have forbidden the affected contractors from contracting with their employees to submit Title VII claims to arbitration. I just don't think that's so terrible. The policy of the law generally favors arbitration. For one thing, most Title VII claims do not involve rape. For another, the policy of the law is generally to favor arbitration, and in the absence of duress or coercion (which, if they existed here, I haven't seen argued), I think that's right.

You write that "the Franken Amendment adds rape to the list of Title VII claims," which leads me to believe that we may not be understanding each other. Just to be clear, the amendment would not amend TItle VII or change its scope in any way. It would just forbid certain arbitration clauses.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 20:43:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Explain (6.00 / 1)

The Franken amendment states:

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.

Why wouldn't it be reasonable to to prohibit the Federal government from contracting with companies that require employees to sign away their rights under law?  Why is it reasonable under any circumstances for an employee to turn over to an employer the right to decide whether the employee can sue or seek redress?

Your defense of 30 knee-jerk Republicans is odd.  The intent of the amendment seems to clear to the entirety of the Democratic delegation as well as a fair number of Republicans.  Perhaps you are misunderstanding?

---

by: lightiris @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 21:23:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll take a stab at it (6.00 / 2)

You ask: "Why is it reasonable under any circumstances for an employee to turn over to an employer the right to decide whether the employee can sue or seek redress?" Respectfully, I think it is you who are misunderstanding. By signing an arbitration contract, the employee is not giving up the right to sue or seek redress. He or she is simply agreeing that certain claims will be heard and decided by an arbitrator rather than by a court. The law generally favors arbitration agreements; the courts have upheld them in the Title VII context specifically; and so I think the onus is on you to say what's wrong with that.

But let's suppose you're right, and there is something wrong with arbitrating Title VII claims. Then isn't the answer to change the Federal Arbitration Act to make such claims non-arbitrable rather than to use the power of the purse to impose such a rule on certain employers? That was my proposal earlier in the thread.

As for the breakdown in the votes, I think this is a case of bad "optics" for the Republicans. If you frame the issue, as it has been framed in this thread, as an issue about rape, then it sure is hard to oppose the amendment. But if you frame the issue as an issue about what should be arbitrable, then it's much easier to oppose the amendment. Speaking as a Democrat, I think that the Democrats' framing of this issue takes a page from the Republican playbook--perhaps if Sen. Franken had called his amendment "Jamie's Law," that point would be more obvious.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 21:43:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you. (0.00 / 0)

That helps me get a handle on the issue.  

---

by: lightiris @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 15:05:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah (0.00 / 0)

I did indeed read what you wrote incorrectly. And having zero training in the law, I have to admit that talk of titles, contracts and arbitration is a bit over my head, and, as a layman, I find your initial comment a little too vague.  Basically, I'm more or less prodding you to tease out your argument so I can understand more clearly.

So what you are saying is that opposing the idea of prohibiting the government from entering into contracts with parties who, by using these arbitration clauses, want to prevent victims who were drugged, held captive, and repeatedly raped from having their day in a US Court is not a disreputable idea?

Additionally, from a political perspective, why put yourself on the side of the corporations that want to skirt the justice system via these arbitration clauses and side against victims of rape?  It's not disreputable to side with Haliburton/KBR over women who just want their day in court?

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 21:36:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Assumption about arbitration (0.00 / 0)

Let me ask you one, tblade: Why do you implicitly assert that putting a case before an arbitrator is inferior to putting it before a jury?

(I should say that as a practicing lawyer, I do believe that arbitration is often inferior to the courts for lots of reasons, but now I want to tease out your argument, since it seems that you and others have simply assumed that if the claim is arbitrable, the employee loses).

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 21:48:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honest answer (6.00 / 1)

Two fold:

a.) I'm admittedly ignorant to the way this all works.

and

b.) It seems that in this system Jamie Lee Jones, the woman who was the impetus behind this amendment, was prevent from filing a criminal complaint against her assailants and was prevented from suing for monetary damages. Furthermore, Haliburton/KBR was seemingly allowed to destroy evidence and legally get way with it.

In sum, based on the Jones case alone, arbitration seems to benefit greatly the Haliburton/KBRs who already have much leverage due to the fact they are a billion dollar corporation who have the cash and the lawyers to find such loopholes and seems to not even remotely protect the employees in an adequate fashion.  

If arbitration wasn't inferior from the employee's standpoint, why would Haliburton/KBR have it wtitten in the contract for the first place. Clearly it is an unfair advantage they wanted written in to protect themselves if a case such as Jones's arrived.

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 22:04:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough... (0.00 / 0)

...and I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But a few point for your consideration:

1. The arbitration clause has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal law issues. The government could prosecute (note that it's the government, not Jones, who would prosecute a criminal case) notwithstanding the arbitration clause, though Neil Sagan claims elsewhere on this thread that the government would not have jurisdiction. I don't know if he's right or not, but the answer to that question has nothing to do with the arbitration issue.

2. There are plenty of cases where an arbitration clause gets invalidated because one party tricked or forced the other party to sign. Is that what happened here? Maybe--I'd be interested in anything you know about that. But if you were satisfied that the contract was freely entered into on both sides, would you feel differently?

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 22:15:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Issues of note. (6.00 / 1)

You note that: "The arbitration clause has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal law issues."

Isn't the civil redress the only area of redress when the corporations have been given immunity from prosecution by the Iraqi & U.S. Govts?  As such I'd say the clause is very related because it represents a restriction on the only available option.

I'd also not that while it is true that arbitration isn't always inferior to actual civil trials, in practical terms they usually are, at least when the contract clause in question is between two parties of vastly differing power and resources.  This is because, like anything, the devil is in the details (binding / non-binding?, who chooses the arbitor?, who incurs the costs?, what is the schedule?, etc.) and the corporation has more power in determining those details.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 08:39:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Arbitration (6.00 / 1)

Parties choose arbitration, when they do choose arbitration, because it is generally quicker, cheaper, and private. In my experience, arbitration generally provides an inferior quality of justice, but that's the tradeoff for arbitration's advantages. There is a lot of literature out there about ways in which arbitration can advantage corporate defendants (who are repeate players) and disadvantage individuals, and I think there's something to that. But I guess my overarching point is that there's no reason to single out government contractors for special rules about this. If we don't think that certain claims should be arbitrable, then just make them non-arbitrable by statute.

---

by: TedF @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 10:08:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your overarching point... (0.00 / 0)

... is well taken.  I guess in this case, the 'singling out' of contractors (all or just DOD? - this was an amendment to a military funding bill, yes?) with specific characteristics the 'satisfying' way to do it would be to point out how these special characteristics constitute an area in specific need of redress.  It seems to me that the specific dangers here have to do with the legal limo that the employment contract puts the employee in, due to the nature of the work - in particular the fact that it took place in Iraq.  In this case I think the amendment implies that the area in need of protection arbitration of "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. "  I'd probably add that this may be a problem area in need of statutory redress, but that it may be limited to contractors and employees operating on foreign soil, where other legal avenues of redress can be more of a problem to non-existent.  (I'd probably also want to include any contractor given any specific legal immunity in its operations by the DOD or State Dept.)

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 20:24:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

who chooses the arbitor? (0.00 / 0)

in this case KBR chooses, and KBRs wins an overwhelming number of the arbitrations.  I remember reading this but I don;t remember the source.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 13:38:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have yet to see (0.00 / 0)

any case of binding arbitration where the complainant gets to choose the arbiter. It's like dueling - you issue a challenge, they get to choose the weapons. Instead of pistols at twenty paces, it's the arbiter they usually use, in a state far from your home.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 13:47:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's about protecting future employees (0.00 / 0)

I'm not trying to give you a hard time; I prod at you because I want to learn. So thanks for your patience.

I understand that Jones freely entered into her contract with KBR, and I get that she has no further legal recourse.  But I do feel that people who enter into contracts with entities that are both funded with public money and making obscene, obscene profits shouldn't have as much power stripped away as Jones seemingly had stripped away.  Yes, Jones entered the contract freely, but I don't think that it crossed her mind that she'd be drugged and raped and had the evidence of such destroyed.  I think KBR created these arbitration clauses exclusively for their protection and to strip power from employees like Jones. No, I don't think that Jones was tricked or coerced into signing, but she didn't planned on getting raped, either.  KBR did have a rape/torture contingency that covered their asses big time and it kept them from being held accountable.

I guess if Jones could have foreseen a scenario where she might be drugged, held captive, and raped, then denied justice by the company she worked for and prevented, via arbitration clauses, from going to US courts and she still signed a contract with KBR, then caveat signator. But I don't think that was the case and I think she got a raw deal; I say take a small portion of the leverage back from the corporation like KBR and give it back to the employee and the government via the Franken Amendment.  

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 09:57:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apparently (6.00 / 3)

KBR's agents got hold of the rape kit, and it disappeared, so there is not sufficient evidence for criminal charges.

Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

That's apart from determining what court would have jurisdiction in a crime that was committed by US contractors in Iraq.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 17:42:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe no US court (0.00 / 0)

had jurisdiction over criminal acts conducting by US citizens in Iraq.  

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 18:26:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

are-iraq-contractors-subject-to-us-law (0.00 / 0)

are-iraq-contractors-subject-to-us-law?

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 00:10:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't this yet another reminder (6.00 / 3)

that using mercenaries is simply a bad idea, and we ought to work to reduce our use of mercenaries?  After all, had they been US Soldiers, the legal process would have been far different, no?

---

by: stomv @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 03:51:18 AM CDT

Franken questions a KBR arbitration lawyer (0.00 / 0)

He does not tiptoe. In passing, he notes that KBR is appealing the latest ruling.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 14:12:18 PM CDT

Great link Kirth - WATCH THIS (0.00 / 0)

www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option"
www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb
www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty!
www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights  

---

by: NeilSagan @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 15:31:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Inouye may strip out Franken's amendment (0.00 / 0)

"The defense contractors have been storming his office," said a source with knowledge of the situation. "Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR's (or other contractors') own terms -- with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely."

A Democratic aide on the Hill, also with knowledge of the situation, confirmed the account, as did a source who works on defense contracting matters outside of Congress. "The contractors are putting on a full-court press on this amendment... they are all doing it," said the latter source.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 07:20:15 AM CDT