Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Awful Keeps Coming

[ 90 ] January 2, 2013 |

It’s not just disaster relief — the House Republican leadership continues to find a variety of appalling-in-themselves excuses to refuse to renew the Violence Against Women Act:

But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans — and they’d rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn’t go anywhere.

And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more.

In a bad commerce clause/14th Amendment holding, a bare majority of Supreme Court conservatives struck down one provision of the VAWA; the Court’s allies in Congress appear poised to finish the job.

Share with Sociable

Comments (90)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. charles pierce says:

    Because, what the hell, the gender gap wasn’t big enough.

  2. JMP says:

    But but Fox News told me teh War on Womens was just a Democrat Party myth@!

  3. Pestilence says:

    I’m just waiting for the Compulsory Violence Against Women Act, it seems the logical extension of this.

  4. RepubAnon says:

    So the Republican Party supports violence against women, and opposes helping the victims of Hurricane Sandy – and laud themselves as being “moral”.

    • DrDick says:

      Most particularly they support the right of white men to rape Native American women (who suffer the highest rates of rape of any group in the US). The sticking point was provisions to increase federal protections for Native women on reservations (where the federal government has exclusive felony jurisdiction).

  5. STH says:

    I saw a reference the other day to a pre-election poll that found that 82% of the people polled thought Obama “cares about people like me.” 18% thought that of Romney.

    So when is that “new Republican party” that appeals to a broader demographic supposed to start? ‘Cause it sure doesn’t look like they’ve learned a damn thing from that election.

    • Pseudonym says:

      So at least 29% of voters voted for a guy even they admitted didn’t care about them?

      • STH says:

        Because he was better than the colored commie, as far as they were concerned. I don’t know that Republicans liked Romney any better than Dems did, they just really, really hate Obama. Voted against him rather than for Romney.

  6. rm says:

    They promise to Repeal and Replace ™ with the Legitimate Violence Against Women Act. The House version will be the Violence Against White Women Act.

  7. Leeds man says:

    They are more protective towards guns than women. I am shocked.

  8. Chris Walsh says:

    I don’t think this post is supportive of the whole truth. There has to be something substantial within it unsupportive of helping the country in it’s current stricken state. For example, the department of human services has just purchased a substantial amount of hollow point ammunition. Why? In case of a civil war with the legislative gun ban directly against our constitution and freedom. The names of things often become a disguise for something completely different than they were intended for. There is more money earned by women than men in this country now, violence against women is not at all tolerated, and for the first time ever in 2012, Caucasian births in this country was not in 1st place. We have a debt problem for many reasons, one being Obama allowing welfare for illegals (“minorities”). Sometimes, try reading between the lines, via some common sense (assuming you’re truly educated enough with current events to have any)

  9. xxy says:

    Why do so many laws have expiration dates? Do people in Congress enjoy needlessly fighting the same battles over and over?

  10. herr doktor bimler says:

    Apparently India is now the goal to strive towards.

  11. anon says:

    What is it about tribal jurisdiction that would cause republicans to go through a PR nightmare like this?

    • witless chum says:

      Worried that the Lakota might try Bill Janklow’s corpse for rape?

      Makes as much sense as most things Republicans are worried about.

      • Bill Murray says:

        Janklow had every one taken care of that was involved in that case back in ’75 (Jacinta Eagle Deer) and ’76 (Delphine Eagle Deer). OK Big Bill probably did not have them killed. I hope this covers me against a Janklow family libel suit.

        • Just Dropping By says:

          Since Janklow is dead, you are probably immune from defamation suits concerning him in any event. (I’m not aware of any state that allows defamation claims based on post-mortem statements about the decedent.)

          • Bill Murray says:

            Thanks for the info. It might help that one of Janklow’s daughters was kind of sweet on me back in about 1984 or 85

          • STH says:

            Now I’ve been totally sidetracked by this interesting legal question (ooh! shiny thing!) What about if the defamation diminishes the value of somebody’s estate? Say, if you came forward with convincing evidence that a famous dead person (whose estate is still raking it in for his or her heirs) was a pedophile and it meant that nobody wanted to buy the official branded memorabilia?

    • DrDick says:

      What is really important here is that the federal government has exclusive felony jurisdiction on Indian reservations under the 1885 Major Crimes Act. Also, tribes do not have any jurisdiction over non-Indians under Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and tribal police cannot arrest them or tribal courts try them.

      • Bill Murray says:

        and it’s hard to get much crime scene work done, when you have to go 200+ miles to report the crime

        • DrDick says:

          Depends on the reservation. There are two federal police agencies responsible for reservation law enforcement. One is the FBI, whose offices are often located far from the reservations. The other is the Bureau of Indian Affairs Police, who are often stationed on the reservations.

          Both agencies have their problems. The FBI often uses assignment to reservation areas (Aberdeen or Flagstaff for instance) as a punishment for troublemakers or as a dumping ground for fuckups. Reservation crime has a low priority and gets only cursory attention and few resources. The BIA Police are notoriously poorly trained, understaffed, and underfunded.

  12. JKTHs says:

    But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans

    I’m sure they’re also not too thrilled about its support for black women

    • mds says:

      I’m sure they’re also not too thrilled about its support for black women

      I would say, “Fixed that for you,” but this comment box is too small to contain it. I long for the day when someone coins a pithy shorthand for such a sentiment.

  13. JL says:

    There have always been legitimate problems with VAWA, namely that it centers the needs of a subset of women while further marginalizing others. Of course, the version of VAWA that the House Republicans failed to pass would have addressed several of them. Apparently they saw the problems as a feature, not a bug.

    I hope the rape crisis counseling line that I counsel for doesn’t get bit in the ass by this.

  14. Bill Shields says:

    Isn’t there anything that lawyers can do to combat this? Up in Surrey, we had some fail-safes put into place, but I don’t know if we can do that in this situation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.