Grassley votes against Violence Against Women Act.

[progressoid]

Thankfully, it passed in spite of him. Wonder what his "reasoning" will be.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/282557-senate-passes-vawa-reauthorization


Assholes:

NAYs ---22
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)

[montanacowboy]

1. What?????? the Darling New face of the Repuke Party

Marco voted against? Yep, the new face of the Repuke Party, Same as the old fuckin face

Filthy dirtbags all

[LoisB]

2. Wonder how their wives, daughters and/or mothers feel?

[OswegoAtheist]

3. "Wonder what his 'reasoning' will be"

Grassley's office on why he voted against VAWA...

Mr. President, the key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts.

That provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those courts. We should focus on providing needed services to Native American women. S. 47 makes political statements and expounds on Native American sovereignty.

It raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for Native American women, while failing to protect the constitutional rights of other American citizens.

...and on his substitute amendment.

This amendment is the Republican alternative. It does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does the majority bill. There are many ways in which this is so....

...The Republican substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. That will ensure that more money is available for victim services....

...The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protective orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country.

Etcetera, etcetera....

Oswego "I asked him on twitter; his office responded, and now follows me. I don't know how I feel about that." Atheist

[progressoid]

4. As usual, Chuckles is full of shit

Or senile. Or both.

Tribal Provision: Myths v. Facts
http://4vawa.org/pages/tribal-provision-of-s-1925-myths-v-facts

Thanks for info though.

That twitter thing might become a bit irritating. I unsubscribed from his emails. Just seeing them in my inbox pissed me off too much.

[47of74]

5. Ugh....

Time to whip this out again;