Eight Senators Vote To Block Violence Against Women Act

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

Pictured: the libertarian principle of "non-aggression".

www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights

He voted against a bad bill. Props to him.

It'd be nice if the proponents of the legislation actually knew what it did.

I stopped reading after this part:
"Section 102 of the Violence Against Women Act, Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Restraining Orders, provides funds to state-level law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors to recommend, issue, and enforce restraining orders.

"Restraining orders bar couples from associating together, and thus prevent them from marrying or continuing a marriage. This represents an infringement on citizens' fundamental right to privacy."

The author clearly has no idea what domestic violence is, so I think we should all be taking his opinions with a massive heap of salt.

[Obamanation]

Tim Scott is already starting to live up to the legacy of Jim DeMint.

He's the dirtiest piece of trash in Congress.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

Pictured: the libertarian principle of "non-aggression".

www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights

He voted against a bad bill. Props to him.

It'd be nice if the proponents of the legislation actually knew what it did.

I stopped reading after this part:
"Section 102 of the Violence Against Women Act, Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Restraining Orders, provides funds to state-level law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors to recommend, issue, and enforce restraining orders.

"Restraining orders bar couples from associating together, and thus prevent them from marrying or continuing a marriage. This represents an infringement on citizens' fundamental right to privacy."

The author clearly has no idea what domestic violence is, so I think we should all be taking his opinions with a massive heap of salt.

My God, that's hilarious.

[Simfan34]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

You are disgusting.

You and your whole lot are disgusting.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

Pictured: the libertarian principle of "non-aggression".

The Big Government has no right to interfere in domestic affairs. It's not up to the Big Government to regulate whether I can beat my wife. Freedom.

[Badger]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

Pictured: the libertarian principle of "non-aggression".

www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights

He voted against a bad bill. Props to him.

It'd be nice if the proponents of the legislation actually knew what it did.

I stopped reading after this part:
"Section 102 of the Violence Against Women Act, Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Restraining Orders, provides funds to state-level law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors to recommend, issue, and enforce restraining orders.

"Restraining orders bar couples from associating together, and thus prevent them from marrying or continuing a marriage. This represents an infringement on citizens' fundamental right to privacy."

The author clearly has no idea what domestic violence is, so I think we should all be taking his opinions with a massive heap of salt.

Oh, you have no idea how bad that link is. I don't mean it's a questionable defense bar piece objected to by a domestic violence prosecutor. I mean it is litterly something a high school student would rightfully get a failing grade for submitting.

Domestic violence arrests are predominantly made against men, not because most dv perpetrators are male for a host of plainly obvious societal and biological reasons, but because dv laws like VAWA are 'unconstitutionally' prejudiced against men. Many dv charges result in dismissal or reduction of charges, not because dv cases are especially hard to prosecute as (sadly) many victims soon recant or otherwise refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, but because most dv arrests are 'obviously made without probable cause'. And let's not forget that anyone with a junior high textbook on the criminal justice system would know there is a vast difference between probable cause to arrest and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

The fact that some woefully ignorant and misinformed ideologue libertard on the internet  would adopt such tripe as gospel is expected. The fact 8 members of the US Senate, one of whom has a decent chance of being president in a few years, is horrifying.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

You are disgusting.

You and your whole lot are disgusting.

Being called disgusting by you is a honor, my friend.

[Simfan34]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

You are disgusting.

You and your whole lot are disgusting.

Being called disgusting by you is a honor, my friend.

Alas, I was talking to SJoyce.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A 49% plurality, but fair enough. Unless he either does something absolutely awful.

He just did.

No, he did something good.

You are disgusting.

You and your whole lot are disgusting.

Being called disgusting by you is a honor, my friend.

Alas, I was talking to SJoyce.

Oh.

Though it remains that someone who praised Orban, Palavi and Pinochet, among others, can hardly call anyone disgusting.