Sofia wrote:Oh. She really got me with that manners police line.
While leaving in a lightning fast bolt--and not explaining why there is a need for this Violence Against Women Act...
And you fail to make a single point why it's not needed? (Save to regurgitate clichés like "just enforce existing laws harumph!")
I am really puzzled by sofia's strident anti-feminist positions. Of course, this is the internet. We see a female avatar and a female name but beyond that we really don't know what "sofia" is.
Sofia wrote:The Violence Against Women Act is crap to most Republicans and individualists, and people with common sense.
There is already a law against violence. !
Yeah, we should have just one law that covers all violent acts. Makes sense to me! And all people "with common sense." Ooooooh, sister!
angie--
Why aren't the anti-violence laws--already in existence--sufficient? Why have other specific-to-gender/race/sexual orientation anti-violence laws?
I'm open to a good reason.
It was Saturday night, and I had plans ..... is that ok?
Perhaps we need this law because there is a disproportionate amount of violence against women.
(Regarding the manners thing, it was an attempt at humor. Not my strong suit.)
Another thing, re the Holmes nomination:
Can those who support Holmes honestly say that, if they had a daughter going through a divorce, they would be ok having the case heard in a Holmes' court ?
Or if they had a daughter who was battered regularly by her husband and who finally struck back and killed him, they would be ok having the case heard in a Holmes' court ?
The man does not view women as equal to men. The law does.
How can anyone possibly reconcile those two facts ?
angie--
Not arguing, just FYI.
Even if every woman in the country is beaten on Friday--one law addresses it. Adding another law won't improve things.
Why isn't one law good enough? I'm really open to a reasonable answer.
That is actually my position on gun control: we have enough laws, no need for more, enforce the ones we have and we'll all do a lot better.
I'm not exactly sure what this law encompasses. If it is, in fact, redundant, then it is not needed. If it addresses additional issues, then it is not. Is that reasonable?
On the other hand, opposition to the law is coming from a group that publically states " The batered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings." Tell that to all the women who were beaten up last Friday night.
It is very similar to the unions still being around. The issue of battered women has been addressed and is more prevalent in American society. In the past it wasn't and there wasn't a fair level of justice. Now the police arrest whom ever was the person who threw the first punch, and also the courts are making therapy mandatory for abusers. I would say to have another level of law on top of what is now fairly addressed is over kill and a waste of the courts time and tax payer money.
Why not simplify things and have one law that encompasses all acts of violence? And one penalty. If a woman punches her husband she gets the same penalty as someone flying an airliner into a building and killing 3,000 people. After all, they are both just acts of violence, right? Why make any distinction?
I agree, baldimo. This is typical of the Democrat party leadership. They create a false useless piece of legislation to keep stroking their constituency...and trot out gleefully some simpy statement like-- George Bush is against a law to stop women from being battered!!!
I looked in on these women, and they are quite an interesting crew. They are ....Federalists, pretty much. They advocate small govt, states' rights and more personal responsibility.
They have alot of interest in issues that affect women--and refreshingly, don't have the same old Feminist views. They have another way of looking at this stuff. I don't know enough about them to approve them wholesale, but I strongly agree with them on the Violence Against Women Act. Its not only redundant, but it is hamstribging women from getting justice.
And, another way to increase trial lawyers' take...
------
Trial Lawyers and Women's Rights
by Anita K. Blair
2/4/2000
The Violence Against Women Act was supposed to prevent, not inflict, violence against women. The case of United States v. Morrison, now before the Supreme Court, shows how feminists and lawyers use this law to pursue their own interests at the expense of their victim-clients.
In April 1995, then-freshman Christy Brzonkala complained to Virginia Tech University officials that she had been gang-raped more than six months earlier by two male student-athletes in a dormitory room.
After disciplinary hearings school officials concluded there was no rape, but put one of the accused men on probation for "using abusive language." A criminal investigation followed, and the local grand jury declined to indict either of the accused.
In March 1996 Brzonkala sued Virginia Tech and the men in federal court, claiming that the school had violated her civil rights and the men had committed "a crime of violence motivated by gender" under the Federal Violence Against Women Act.
Three months later, the federal district judge dismissed these claims, finding that Congress lacks authority under the U.S. Constitution to make a federal offense out of an alleged rape that was neither "interstate" nor "commerce." He specifically noted that Brzonkala could pursue her claims through a civil case in state court -- as indeed she could have at any time after the incident.
What happened then? Did the young woman, having already suffered for two years, go across the street to a Virginia state court and sue for the same damages based on the same alleged conduct?
No. Instead, her lawyers appealed, and in March 1999 the federal appeals court ultimately reached the same conclusion as the trial judge: The Constitution does not permit Congress to regulate private conduct that is not interstate and not commerce. Now the case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Over five years have passed since the original incident. One has to wonder, wouldn't Brzonkala have been better off choosing a speedy trial?
If she had sued in Virginia state court invoking traditional claims of assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, her case probably would have gone to trial within six months or a year. The trial probably would have lasted a week. Appeals in Virginia typically take a year or less. Had Brzonkala chosen to sue in state court, her case would be long over. Instead her lawyers have spent over five years pursuing a federal claim that appears patently unconstitutional.
What's driving this attenuated case? The victim's best interests? No, greedy lawyers. For the bottom-line difference between a federal "gender" case and a traditional state tort action is how much the lawyers may get in fees.
Federal law would award the winner's attorneys' fees at prevailing hourly rates, whereas in state tort cases lawyers typically are compensated with a percentage (usually one-third) of the damages or settlement.
The Violence Against Women Act is only one of many federal laws that benefit trial lawyers by making federal civil rights claims out of actions previously addressed as state tort claims. Under federal laws, if the jury ultimately awards the plaintiff even one dollar in damages, her lawyers may be entitled to thousands in fees, paid by whatever "deep pocket" defendant they can rope into the case.
Increasingly that defendant is a school or school district, especially since the Supreme Court's ruling last year holding schools potentially liable for student-on-student sexual harassment. Had the Violence Against Women Act never been enacted, Ms. Brzonkala could have had her day in a Virginia court long ago. Instead, her interests have been hijacked by opportunistic feminists and trial lawyers.. This federal law makes America safe for lawyers, not women.
-----
There is more than one opinion about these matters.
The law is bad. Bush made a great appointment. Feminists seem to be becoming another 'hands over ears, mind closed' group, who only see things one way.
"Feminists seem to be becoming ......."
It's never accurate to generalize. There are extremists in every group.
Christians, Muslims, for example ...
A generalization would have been... "Feminists ARE becoming..."
Quite picky at the nits, for one who didn't even know what the law entailed before running amok with it, yes?
<not that nit picking or running amok are bad things...>
I just hope, if nothing else, you will look at the screed you posted so liberally--and maybe check out their veracity--or opposing viewpoints.
In the interests of nit-picking, "Feminists seem to be ..."
suggests "All feminists seem to be", and is indeed a generalization.
I posted the List to get reactions / opinions, and I find no contradiction in doing so and in allowing for the possibility that one of the laws cited in one of the items MAY be redundant. Even if that were to be the case, I would still be in opposition to anyone who believes that the battered women's movement "may have outlived it's useful beginnings".
Further, I am in complete opposition to most (perhaps all) of the appointees listed. In particular, I am horrified by the possibility that a man who believes women ought to be subservient to men might actually be approved and serve for life in the United States court system.
I find it difficult to understand (though I do continue to try) how ANY woman could support the nomination of such a man.
We are very different, you and I, Sofia. Nevertheless, I do welcome your participation here on this thread. I mean that. It is always worthwhile to learn how others feel about an issue, even if their positions are shocking and/or disturbing.
Hold still....I see one.... more.....nit.
I inferred "Some feminists seem to be..."
If there is a word left out of my sentence, I get to say what it was.
<smiles>
One of the things I notice about the gigolo is that he doesn't seem to have anything resembling middle-class habits, hobbies, or tastes in life at all. Every picture I've ever seen of the guy shows him doing some sort of idle rich thing, either shooting skeets, yachting, fly fishing, or something of that nature. I'm waiting and I would guess I won't have to wait long to see a picture of him out in the woods with a trained pig on a leash looking for truffles.
