DOCSLIB.ORG

Xxxx (R-Xx) Senate Vote Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Xxxx (R-Xx) Senate Vote Report XXXX (R-XX) SENATE VOTE REPORT Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 METHODOLOGY 4 POLITICAL INFORMATION 5 ISSUES 7 ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE 8 AGRICULTURE 15 BANKING AND CORPORATE REFORM 30 BUDGET & SPENDING 42 CIVIL RIGHTS & MINORITY ISSUES 69 CONSUMER PROTECTION 74 CRIME AND GUNS 83 EDUCATION 93 ELECTIONS, GOOD GOVERNMENT, ETHICS 121 ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 135 FOREIGN POLICY 165 FOREIGN POLICY: IRAQ 173 HEALTH CARE 191 HOMELAND SECURITY 225 HOUSING 247 IMMIGRATION 250 JOBS AND LABOR 257 NOMINATIONS 272 SENIORS 282 SOCIAL ISSUES 288 TAXES 291 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 317 TRADE 319 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 327 TROOPS, DEFENSE, AND VETERANS 336 WOMEN 357 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MCCONNELLMCCONNELLXXXXX 3 METHODOLOGY DISCLAIMER: As with all projects of this nature, we strongly urge you to double-check any specific information before using it for official campaign purposes, including press releases and paid communications. The DSCC research department is available to assist in these efforts at any time. 4 5 ISSUES AGRICULTURE HIGHLIGHTS INTEREST GROUP RATINGS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THE XXXX RECORD FARM BILL 2008: XXXX Voted To Override Bush Vet Of the Farm Bill Reauthorization. In June 2008, XXXX voted to override President Bush’s veto of the five-year authorization of agriculture programs. In addition to reauthorizing crop subsidies, the new farm law tightens income eligibility limits for payments, boosts funding for food stamps, expands conservation programs and offers new incentives for alternative energy. Another section restored in the legislation authorized trade and international food assistance programs. The override attempt passed 80-14. [CQ Today, 6/18/08; Vote 151, 6/18/08] XXXX Voted For the Farm Bill Reauthorization. In June 2008, XXXX voted for a new version of the $289 billion farm bill that included a trade-related title accidentally left out of the version that Congress sent to President Bush the previous month. The legislation is identical to the conference report on the farm bill that lawmakers approved in May. However, the trade title was inadvertently dropped from the version that Bush vetoed. The bill passed 77-15, with a threat of another veto by the President. [CQ Today, 6/05/08; Vote 144, 6/05/08] XXXX Voted For the Farm Bill Reauthorization. In May 2008, XXXX voted in favor of overriding President Bush’s veto of the five-year farm bill. However, an error by a House enrollment clerk, who dropped one of the original bill’s 15 titles before sending it to the White House, would require the Senate to vote again on the bill. The veto override passed 82-13. [CQ Today, 5/22/06; Vote 140, 5/22/08] XXXX Supported the Farm Bill Reauthorization Conference Report. In May 2008, XXXX voted for the $289 billion farm bill conference report that would reauthorize crop subsidies, land conservation programs, food stamps and other agriculture entitlement programs. The measure appeals to both rural and urban members, largely because of the $10.3 billion in new funding in the bill. That sum includes about 6 $1.2 billion to restock food banks and $1 billion for a school snack program. The measure will also establish a $3.8 billion trust fund to help farmers in flood- and drought-prone areas. The measure also contains provisions designed to guard against speculation in energy markets by setting record-keeping requirements for electronic energy traders and requiring them to provide an audit trail. [CQ Today, 5/15/08; Vote 130, 5/15/08] 2002: XXXX Voted Against the 2002 Farm Bill, Massive Subsidy Increases. In 2002, XXXX voted against a new farm bill re-establishing programs that supply payments to farmers when commodity prices fall below a specified level. It also raised mandatory and direct farm program spending by $73.5 billion over 10 years, provided $243 billion for food stamps and restored benefits for legal immigrants, and increased conservation spending to $17.1 billion. It also lowered the total limit on payments to individual farmers to $360,000 and authorized a new $1 billion dairy program for three and a half years. [Vote 103, 5/8/02] XXXX Voted For The 2001 Farm Bill. In 2001, XXXX voted for the 2001 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill XXXX supported would amend and extend for 5 years farm income support, land conservation, credit assistance, food assistance, trade promotion, marketing assistance, and rural development programs. Mandatory spending, primarily on farm income support programs, would be substantially increased, and several new mandatory-spending programs would be created. Democrats said the bill would cost $170 billion over 10 years. The vote was on a cloture motion to close debate on the motion to proceed to the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001. [Vote 352, 12/5/01; National Journal’s Congress Daily, 12/5/01] XXXX Opposed Expanding on Reforms That Were Begun in the Last Farm Bill. In 2001, XXXX voted against expanding on the reforms that were begun in the last farm bill and increase funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Overall, the amendment would spend the same amount over the baseline over 10 years as the Harkin amendment. The motion to table was agreed to, 55-40. [Vote 374, 12/18/01] XXXX Voted Against Harkin’s Substitute 2001 Farm Bill. XXXX voted against the Farm Bill which would have renewed federal farm programs set to expire in October 2002. [Vote 377, 12/23/01] DAIRY & LIVESTOCK XXXX Voted to Ease Restrictions on Importing Canadian Beef, Ignored Mad Cow Fears. In 2005, XXXX voted to allow the Department of Agriculture to ease restrictions on Canadian beef. McConnell voted against a joint resolution that would block a proposed Department of Agriculture regulation that would have eased restrictions on the importation of Canadian beef. The U.S. border was closed to Canadian cattle after the 2003 discovery of mad cow disease in Alberta. The Bush Administration argued that easing the restrictions would help convince Japan to consider accepting U.S. beef, “a critical step for reviving the $7.5 billion beef and cattle industry,” but American cattle ranchers feared that Canadian cattle could spread disease within the U.S. and “make it impossible to resume the beef trade with Japan.” [Vote 19, 3/3/05; New York Times, 3/4/05] XXXX Voted to Not Allow Kobe Beef to Come Into U.S., Even If Japan Continued Ban on U.S. Beef. In 2005, XXXX was one of 26 Senators who voted to ban beef imports from Japan until that country opened its borders to U.S. beef. [Vote 236, 9/20/05; Omaha World-Herald, 9/21/05] XXXX Voted to Delay COOL For Two Years. XXXX voted for the FY04 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which gave retailers an extra two years to begin putting country-of-origin labels on food. Working with the Bush Administration, Republicans added an amendment to the Omnibus Bill that delayed the implementation of Country of Origin Labeling until 2006. The Bush Administration had been resisting implementation because meat packers and processors, especially large corporations like Tyson and Cargill Foods, do not favor COOL. These companies want it killed because they are afraid it will cut into profits. [Vote 3, 1/22/04; Aberdeen American News, 1/30/04; Washington Post, 2/3/04; Congressional Quarterly, 1/21/04] 7 Critics Slammed COOL Delay That Was Worked Out Behind Closed Doors. Discussing the two-year delay of county-of-origin labeling requirements in 2004, Dave Frederickson, president of the National Farmers Union, said, “I am appalled that this attack on the country-of-origin food labeling law was not debated in public.” [Star Tribune, 1/23/04] XXXX Voted Against Requiring Country Of Origin On Meat Labels. In a vote against small American ranchers, 29 Republicans, including XXXX, bowed to the pressure from huge, big business, international meat producers and vote to kill a Daschle amendment that would have mandated that all meat sold in the US be labeled, displaying the country the animal was raised. Country of Origin labeling is also important following the discovery of livestock inflicted with Mad Cow disease in Canada. The motion to kill the Daschle bill did not pass. [Vote 443, 11/6/03] XXXX Voted to Restrict Federal Environmental Subsidies For Certain Livestock Operations. In 2002, XXXX voted to restrict federal environmental subsidies for new and expanding livestock operations. [Vote 15, 2/6/02; National Journal's Congress Daily, 2/7/02] XXXX Voted to Place Livestock Contracts Under The Jurisdiction Of The Packers And Stockyards Act. In 2002, XXXX voted to put livestock production contracts under the jurisdiction of the Packers and Stockyards Act. It would also permit parties to a contract for the sale or production of livestock or poultry to discuss terms or details of the contract with a legal adviser, lender, accountant, executive or manager, landlord, or family member. The vote was on the Harkin modified amendment to the Daschle (for Harkin) substitute amendment to the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001 (S. 1731). The amendment was agreed to, 82-14. [Vote 16, 2/6/02] XXXX Voted For The Packer Ban. In 2002, XXXX voted in favor of banning most meatpackers from owning or controlling livestock for more than 14 days before slaughter. Cooperatives and small packers would be excluded from the ban. Packers, who would have up to 18 months to sell off any livestock that they own, said the restrictions make it harder for them to procure adequate supplies of top-quality meat. The vote was on a motion to table the Harkin (for Grassley) amendment to the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record—Senate S5220
    S5220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 22, 2010 mom, an immigrant to this country, That is what we believe in on the know what the facts say. They know and my dad, from a farm family, never Democratic side of the aisle. The Re- the history. I hope they do not embrace borrowed money, scared to death of publicans say: Oh, deficit spending. the Republican approach which will debt, because they saw the Great De- Stop. We cannot do that. Then what drive us further into unemployment pression and they saw it destroy peo- happens? The business fails. The jobs and recession. ple. Franklin Roosevelt came in as are lost. The people draw unemploy- I yield the floor. President in those days. He came in in ment and, in desperation, wait for The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- March of 1933. He said, we are going to something to happen. pore. The Senator from Maryland. change this. We are going to get Amer- You know what the Republicans are f ica back on its feet. You have nothing up to now? Last week we asked them: KAGAN NOMINATION to fear but fear itself. We are going to Would you please extend unemploy- put people back to work. We are going ment benefits for these millions of Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this to give them government jobs if we Americans who are out of work. In my Monday the Senate Judiciary Com- cannot find them jobs in the private State the unemployment rate is 10.8 mittee will begin the confirmation sector. We are going to tell our farm- percent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report on the Litigation Lobby
    CENTER FOR LEGAL POLICY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE C L P STREET NW A REPORT ON THE LITIGATION LOBBY 2010 A Message from the Director merica’s litigation-friendly legal system continues to im- law is, for the most part, crafted by state judges rather than en- A pose a heavy burden on our economy. The annual direct acted by state legislatures, these efforts have centered on ensuring cost of American tort litigation—excluding much securities liti- a friendly judiciary, whether appointed or elected. gation, punitive damages, and the multibillion-dollar settlement With business groups now fighting back against Trial Lawyers, reached between the tobacco companies and the states in 1998— Inc.’s longtime grip on state judiciaries, the litigation lobby has exceeds $250 billion, almost 2 percent of gross domestic prod- turned its attention to state legislatures, where it is not only block- uct.1 The indirect costs of excessive litigiousness (for example, the ing tort reforms but working to expand its portfolio of litigation unnecessary tests and procedures characterizing the practice of opportunities. Among other things, state legislators are authoriz- “defensive” medicine, or the loss of the fruits of research never ing new kinds of lawsuits, raising damage caps, and giving private undertaken on account of the risk of abusive lawsuits) are prob- lawyers authority to sue on behalf of the state. ably much greater than the direct costs themselves.2 Of course, the growth in federal regulation and law has made Of course, tort litigation does do some good, and it does deter it necessary for Trial Lawyers, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON DIVISION) JAMIE LEIGH JONES § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:07-cv-2719 § HALLIBURTON COMPANY d/b/a § KBR KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT § (KBR); KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT§ SERVICES, INC.; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL,§ INC.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § LLC; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § INC.; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, § S. de R.L.; KELLOGG BROWN & § ROOT (KBR), INC.; KBR § TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; § OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE § SERVICES, LTD.; ERIC ILER, § CHARLES BOARTZ; and SEVERAL § JOHN DOE RAPISTS § Defendants. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT NOW COMES, Jamie Leigh Jones, and files this suit against Halliburton Company d/b/a KBR Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root, S. de R.L., Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively 1 “KBR”); Overseas Administrative Services (OAS); Eric Iler, Charles Boartz, and Several other attackers, whose identities are currently only known as “John Doe”, complaining about the sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual assault, rape, physical injury and other personal injuries to Jamie Leigh Jones. For clarification, this case is not about a pinch on the backside, or a few politically incorrect jests at the office. Jamie Leigh Jones was first forced into a sexual relationship, against her will, with her supervisor, or risk losing her job at a time when her mother was incapable of supporting them and Jamie was the sole source of income. After escaping that environment, she was harassed, and threatened in Baghdad, before she was ultimately the subject of a brutal sexual attack by several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally.
    [Show full text]
  • OXPO - Oxford Sciences Po Research Group
    OXPO - Oxford Sciences Po Research group - http://oxpo.politics.ox.ac.uk OXPO Working papers Waiving rights in mandatory arbitration clauses: a challenge for liberalism1 Alicia-Dorothy Mornington Sciences Po (CEVIPOF) Work in progress Please do not cite without the permission of the author 1 This paper was presented at the Oxford Jurisprudence Discussion Group, Oxford University on November 1st 2012. 1 Abstract: This presentation focuses on the case of Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton et al. (USA, 2009). Jones’ employment contract with Halliburton/KBR had a clause stipulating that, in the case of rape she was giving up her right to a tort trial. By signing, she accepted to resort to KBR's private arbitration system. Jones was subsequently raped during a mission in Iraq. Due to the Department of State’s gross negligence, she was barred from having a criminal trial, and her waiver prevented her from initiating a tort trial. Waiving rights poses a serious challenge to neutrality-committed liberalism (NCL), as it takes consent as the basis for legitimacy. NCL’s is committed to protecting liberty, rejects paternalism and does not have a coherent response to waivers. The laissez-faire option logically entails toleration voluntary slavery in the name of freedom, which contradicts NCL’s goal to promote freedom. Yet condemning voluntary slavery means being paternalist, thus limiting freedom in the name of freedom. In both cases, consent to waiving rights leads NCL to a contradiction. The Jones case thus reveals a blind spot for this trend of liberalism. In this paper, I want to argue that in order to rescue NCL from internal contradiction, non-classically liberal arguments are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Franken's Proposal to Guarantee Sexual Assault Victims Their Day in Court Passes
    For Immediate Release: October 6th, 2009 Contact: Jess McIntosh [email protected] 202.725.6787 Franken's Proposal To Guarantee Sexual Assault Victims Their Day In Court Passes By 68 - 30, Amendment Offered in Honor of former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones Passes the Senate WASHINGTON, DC [10/6/09] - Today, the amendment offered by U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to stop funding defense contractors who deny assault victims their day in court passed the United States Senate by a vote of 68 - 30. Last Thursday, Sen. Franken introduced an amendment (S.2588) to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill that would restrict funding to defense contractors who commit employees to mandatory binding arbitration in the case of sexual assault. The legislation, endorsed by 61 women's, labor and public interest groups, was inspired by the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who watched the vote from the Senate gallery today. Jones was a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime. Her father and U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), worked together to secure her safe return to the United States, but once she was home, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be run by KBR itself. Just today, Halliburton filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in the 5th Circuit Court, which means that Jamie's fight is far from over.
    [Show full text]
  • An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship In
    AN ARCHIVE OF SHAME: GENDER, EMBODIMENT, AND CITIZENSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CULTURE A Dissertation by REBECCA LYNNE HARRIS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2012 Major Subject: English An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship in Contemporary American Culture Copyright 2012 Rebecca Lynne Harris AN ARCHIVE OF SHAME: GENDER, EMBODIMENT, AND CITIZENSHIP IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CULTURE A Dissertation by REBECCA LYNNE HARRIS Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Sally Robinson Committee Members, Claire Katz David McWhirter Mary Ann O’Farrell Head of Department: Nancy Warren May 2012 Major Subject: English iii ABSTRACT An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship in Contemporary American Culture. (May 2012) Rebecca Lynne Harris, B.A., Randolph-Macon College; M.A., Virginia Commonwealth University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Sally Robinson In this dissertation, “An Archive of Shame: Gender, Embodiment, and Citizenship in Contemporary American Culture,” I use the affect of shame in its multiple forms and manifestations as a category of analysis in order to examine complex relationships between gender, sexuality, the body, and citizenship. Through chapters on incest, gender normalization, and disease, I build an “archive” of the feeling of shame that consists of literary texts such as Sapphire’s Push: A Novel, Jeffrey Eugenides’s Middlesex, Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, and Katherine Dunn’s Geek Love, as well as materials from popular culture, films such as Philadelphia, court cases, and other ephemera such as pamphlets and news coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Against Women in the United States 21 A
    Violence Against Women in the United States and the State’s Obligation to Protect Civil Society briefing papers on community, military and custody 2011 Violence Against Women in the United States and the State’s Obligation to Protect Civil Society briefing papers on community, military and custody submitted to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Rashida Manjoo in advance of her Mission to the United States of America January 24 – February 7, 2011 Full document also available at: www.law.virginia.edu/vaw ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge Rashida Manjoo, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, for her deep commitment to this work, her profound intellectual contributions, and generosity of time and spirit in meeting with civil society. Shirley Lanta Wang (Duke University School of Law JD‘11) for the cover and publication design and layout Katrina Anderson, Human Rights Counsel, US Legal Program Center for Reproductive Rights University of Virginia School of Law students: Adrienne Boone (JD ’10); Elisa Chen (JD ’13); Rebecca Dalton (JD ’13); Caitlin Gregg (JD ’11); Elizabeth Horner (JD ’11); Julia O’Halloran (JD ’13); Emily Ponder (JD ’14); Sarika Reuben (JD ’13); Marina Warner (JD ’11) With Great Appreciation for funding the publication of this compilation: University of Virginia Center for International Studies Dean Claudio Grossman and American University, Washington College of Law Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School National Organization for Women Foundation University of Virginia School of Law Human Rights Clinic American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic Dean Louis Bilionis and the University of Cincinnati College of Law Clinical Program Indian Law Resource Center Center for Reproductive Rights Stephanie Ortoleva / Women Enabled ii CHAPTER AUTHORS The authors do not necessarily endorse all of the positions expressed in other chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 111 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 156 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2010 No. 94 House of Representatives The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was live together in unity and peace. We Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Mr. called to order by the Speaker pro tem- are different and yet the same. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ivy pore (Mr. CUELLAR). Thank You for the gift of commu- Tech Community College in South f nities around the world, large and Bend, Indiana. Last week, Ivy Tech’s small, and for the many ways in which South Bend campus was approved by DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO our hands are an extension of Your the Indiana Commission for Higher TEMPORE graceful hands. Education to become the first college The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- Empower the leaders of the House in in Indiana to offer an associate’s de- fore the House the following commu- their important work as they serve to gree in the field of nanotechnology. nication from the Speaker: make our communities safe, produc- As demonstrated by advances made at the Midwest Institute for Nanoelec- Washington, DC, June 22, 2010. tive, and beautiful places to live and tronics Discovery in South Bend, north I hereby appoint the Honorable HENRY work. CUELLAR to act as Speaker pro tempore on Grant each person here wisdom in central Indiana is a growing leader in this day. the important work that You have the Nation’s nanotechnology research NANCY PELOSI, called them to do.
    [Show full text]
  • ''Workplace Fairness: Has the Supreme Court Been
    S. HRG. 111–396 ‘‘WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: HAS THE SUPREME COURT BEEN MISINTERPRETING LAWS DE- SIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS FROM DISCRIMINATION?’’ HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 7, 2009 Serial No. J–111–55 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56–089 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:39 May 11, 2010 Jkt 056089 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\56089.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper: Headline Blues
    HEADLINE BLUES: Number 23 ❖ October 2011 Civil Justice In The Age Of New Media BY RUSSELL SMITH TABLE OF CONTENTS Edited by Joanne Doroshow Introduction ….………………………………1 INTRODUCTION How Do People Get Their News Today and What Are They Learning ………………2 In January 2001, the Center for Justice & Democracy released a Our Methodology ……………………………4 White Paper entitled Reading Between the Headlines: The 1 Media and Jury Verdicts. The report analyzed the media’s General Findings …………………………… 4 coverage of civil jury verdicts and found this coverage to be A. Median award …………………………4 B. Plantiff vs. Defense Verdicts ………… 5 deeply skewed, fueling common misperceptions that civil juries C. Failure to Mention Caps ………………6 routinely award plaintiffs eye-popping verdicts for frivolous Maine Medical Malpractice Case … 6 claims. In addition, headlines commonly emphasized large Mississippi Asbestos Case ………… 7 monetary awards and rarely noted the misconduct that led to the 2 Notes ………………………………………… 12 verdict, such as: “$90 Million Awarded in Car Rollover Case,” “Fen-Phen Suit Nets Pair $29.1 Million Jury Award,”3 Appendix …………………………………… 14 4 “Ravenwood patient awarded $55 million,” “Jury Hands Car- Crash Victims A Record $5B,”5 “Jury Awards Two Brothers $105 Million”.6 Citing real world statistics used by legal scholars and empirical researchers, we found that news coverage of verdicts varied widely from what was actually happening in Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School the civil courts, namely that significant numbers of juries and 185
    [Show full text]
  • Here Litigation Action Will Be in 2009: Fulbright & Jaworski Litigation Trends Data Released, Institute of Management & Administration, Inc., WL 09-1 Law Off
    NO. 09 - 864 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____________________________________________________________ KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., HALLIBURTON COMPANY D/B/A KBR KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, INC., KBR, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, INC., S. DE R.L., AND OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LTD., Petitioner, v. JAMIE LEIGH JONES, Respondent. ____________________________________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit __________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION _______________________________________________________________ L. TODD KELLY JOHN VAIL* HEIDI O. VICKNAIR JEFFREY R. WHITE THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C. ANDRE M. MURA One Riverway, Suite 1150 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Houston, TX 77056-0920 LITIGATION, P.C. (713) 255-2055 777 Sixth Street, N.W. STEPHANIE M. MORRIS Suite 520 1660 L. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Suite 506 (202) 944-2887 Washington, DC 20036 [email protected] (202) 536-2353 Counsel for Respondent *Counsel of Record i QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Federal Arbitration Act compel a court to interpret contractual language to find that gang rape perpetrated by co-employees of the victim in the victim’s bedroom is “related to the employment” of the victim or occurred “in the workplace” of the victim? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ..........................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................iii RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION.............. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................... 1 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ........... 6 I. The Decision Below Is a Fact-Bound, Faithful Application of Existing Doctrine. ........................................................... 7 II.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Application of the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act
    St. John's Law Review Volume 87 Number 2 Volume 87, Spring-Summer 2013, Article 14 Numbers 2-3 The Battle over Combat: A Practical Application of the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act Michael Kutner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FINAL_KUTNER 2/27/2014 6:30 PM THE BATTLE OVER COMBAT: A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE COMBATANT ACTIVITIES EXCEPTION TO THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT MICHAEL KUTNER† INTRODUCTION The combatant activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act is a preservation of sovereign immunity from liability for injuries resulting from the “combatant activities” of the United States military.1 The exception is designed to protect the undeniably compelling government interest of defending the nation from harm without the burden of liability for action necessary to achieve that goal.2 It addresses the concern that imposing tort liability on the military could lead to a chilling effect on decision-making that would cause hesitation to act in the interest of national defense.3 To that end, the exception has in recent years been applied by federal courts in such a way as to effect a policy of “elimination of tort from the battlefield” entirely.4 At first glance, this interpretation seems quite neatly tailored to reflect the exception’s goal.
    [Show full text]