Unlike you, I do think for myself. But I do take the Ayn Rand and Heritage Foundation comparisons as a compliment. They have far more intellectual credibility than ACORN, the Daily Kos or whatever left wing website you get your talking points from. That said, I did NOT say the rape victim had a frivolous case. To the extent that her employer was responsible for the attack against her, she deserves compensation. And she will receive said compensation in arbitration per the employment contract.

I have an idea: instead of making ideological comparisons or spewing emotional pleas, why don’t you take a crack at refuting the argument I’ve made which is that eliminating arbitration clauses in employment contracts is a gift to the trial lawyers.

First of all, Chris is 100% correct that the liberal commenters hear either don’t understand, or are intentionally trying to confuse, the differences between the criminal and civil legal sytems.

More importantly, the Franken* amendment has bundled among many things, including sexual harassment, into the bill.

If Al really cared about the victims of sexual assualt victims, he wouldn’t have lumped in the same protections for women who simply complain that a co-worker whistled at her.

As Chris pointed out, Franken* is only concerned about trial lawyers. Some of these trial lawyers may be the same ones who helped him prepare for the Sotomayor hearings.

Does anyone here actually believe that sexual assault is not far more agregious than sexual harassment?

Jude: What do you mean by cost-benefit analysis. Do you think that these companies hire actuaries to evaluate the level of either harassment or a assault they should tolerate? If so, you are one sick moonbat.

Frivolous case? A woman drugged, raped, locked up and has to be rescued by the State Department after a congressman’s intervention is a frivolous case?

Parrot Heritage Foundation talking points all you want, you cannot win this one.

What is stupid is allowing this issue to come up again. Don’t forget that when it was passed it garnered a bipartisan label. Bringing up again only wears away that label.

Moreover Jude, what about your entrenched default position??? You are so entrenched in your position that you don’t even understand the politics behind Franken’s amendment or the fact that this is something the trial lawyer’s association has been lobbying for over the last several years. In case you don’t understand the process, prosecutors and defense lawyers handle criminal cases and trial lawyers handle civil cases. The trial lawyers want to eliminate arbitration clauses because they can get money out of companies for even frivolous cases because of the high cost of trials which can drag out for months and years. The trial lawyers don’t like arbitration clauses because arbitrations are faster and exponentially cheaper which means companies aren’t likely to settle frivolous cases.

For someone who talks about Randianism, you’re not a very bright person when it comes to the legal system.

Senator Franken didn’t seek to outlaw arbitration clauses, he sought to limit an abuse of them. What is more he didn’t even require anyone to change them. He merely sought to have taxpayer money not to be used to support the abuse.

Some limits have to be set. To me the process of setting this limit just proves this and highlights the absurdity of your entrenched default position.

Even where violations of criminal law are concerned?

I’ve made most of my comments to Jude, but I find it shocking that Senator Franken would attempt to outlaw arbitration clauses in employment contracts. This is truly a gift to trial lawyers who bank on the fact that most employers will settle for something rather than expending huge sums of money fighting a case for months and years in civil court.

This is not about protecting rapists or harming women. A person who is raped can get an award in arbitration just as they would in a civil court, It’s just that the trial lawyers don’t want arbitration because employers don’t shell out cash settlements in arbitration that they do in civil court cases because it’s cheaper to fight the claim in arbitration than it is to pay a settlement — just the opposite of civil court cases.

My reflexive Randianism??? WTF??? I think you need to stay in the philosophy department at whatever university you’re in because you clearly are out of touch with reality.

The fact is that most employers have arbitration clauses in their employment contracts because of the extreme costs of litigation from disgruntled employees. I’m not talking about the costs of awards for meritous claims. I’m talking about the costs of attorneys fees, court costs and litigation in general.

If someone has a legitimate claim, they can seek redress in arbitration. And I can guarantee that rape is not tolerated in arbitration any more than in a court of law. The bottom line is that the amendment is a gift to trial lawyers who bank on the high costs of litigation to get settlements from frivolous cases which would be dismissed in arbitration.

While I think being perceived as excessively partisan is not a good thing for Minnesotans running for statewide office, I am just not sure that it’s Franken who is making this issue partisan. I don’t think the measure was all that partisan or all that hard hitting really when Franken proposed it, and I find it just a bit surprising that Republicans have opposed it, in some cases with a lot of vehemence.

What a bunch of BS.
WE DON’T TOLERATE RAPE. As a country we should not allow arbitration to abused in such away that allow companies use it to reduce the costs of that tolerance in some cost benefit analysis.

Your reflexive Randianism is getting the better of your good judgment here.

Do you want any women or fathers to vote for you?

This has the GOP panties in a bundle? How petty! The GOP members of the Senate who voted against this amendment have more to worry about. This sullies them.

A woman was repeatedly raped, held captive in a storage container with no food or water, and she could not report this as a crime? AC is correct about this in is comment.

“Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a “no” vote on the amendment.”

I don’t think Franken has anything to worry about here. The people who have to worry are the people who voted against it.