12 ms·

US Senate Passes Sweeping Criminal Justice Reform Bill

130 points by beefman 8y ago

GodofGrunts 8y ago
"It bans shackling pregnant prisoners and mandates that tampons and sanitary napkins be available to women." Holy shit. How is this not a thing already?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Things like this used to be what the officer's discretion was for. It used to be that "inhumane treatment" was used on a case by case for prisoners who would take advantage if treated normally (shackles for the prisoner who will run if not shackled, toilet paper instead of tampons for the prisoner that will do I don't know what if given tampons, etc.). Over time these things became the default and decent treatment became the exception rather than the norm. Therefore we didn't used to need a law but we do now.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  "The bill, which is expected to be debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, would only affect federal prisoners accounting for about 10% of the total US prison population." The other 90% of prisoners do not necessarily have them. It really isn't a thing already, even with this.
  - moftz 8y ago
    Maybe a judge could apply due process to force private prisons to apply the same protections for prisoners similar to how the federal govt, specifically District of Columbia, was forced to integrate schools in Bolling v. Sharpe. The 14th amendment should apply if it was a state prison but being federal makes it different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe
- aerotwelve 8y ago
  I'd argue that one of the reasons we have so many violations of basic human dignity in our prison system is that Congress has gone out of its way to prevent inmates from suing for their rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act Nobody likes lawsuits or lawyers, but judicial remedies are often the only option for relief that inmates have. When you take that away from them, they are at the absolute mercy of the prison bureaucracy. Your constitutional rights have been violated? Tough, go fill out a grievance form.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    Felons are restricted from voting in many places, too.
  - lurkaround 8y ago
    I think part of it is the underlying costs of putting so many people in prison then having to eat the "for profit" costs of supplying them with tampons and napkins - i.e. necessities. Even then, you can't even do something like hand out diva cups and reusable clothes?
- francisofascii 8y ago
  There is no need to state obvious guidelines, until the obvious guidelines are broken.
- neilsimp1 8y ago
  My guess is because the rules were written by men without any input from women.
  - chooseaname 8y ago
    You're absolutely correct. HN hates hearing this, but it's true.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      It's actually not true, and that's what makes the lack of these protections so terrible. It's women, who wrote guidelines about how to treat women, and came up with guidelines worse than guidelines that a bunch of old stodgy men in congress came up with yesterday. That's a real problem. And it's a problem that we need to try to solve in "Second Step". I mean, why even have female administrators and wardens putting this stuff together, if they are just going to get their cushy jobs and sit there and try to out "man" the men? The entire reason you're there is to supposedly bring a different sensibility. What's unstated in placing those requirements in this bill, is how much of a dismal failure our hiring programs have been in bringing in people, (men OR women), with different sensibilities. Whether they are male or female, black, white, asian, or hispanic, these positions seem to attract the same sort of people. People who look at the way things are done, and don't see any problem with it. We need to start looking past identity politics and start seeing that issue.
  - byproxy 8y ago
    If you read nimbius' response above, you'll have a better idea of why this was. Basically, prisoners are responsible for purchasing their own sanitary supplies (among other things), men and women.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    While this is definitely a factor, I'd like to point out that there is a whole range of humiliating policies(like the fact that you may have to go without toilet paper for bad behaviour) that affects men and women alike, and then the fact that women can be just as bad towards other women too. I wouldn't be surprised if a woman administrator made the same decisions because degrading prisoners is considered a good thing in many places.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  Because rich, white, men make all the rules.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Like the one requiring pregnant prisoners NOT to be shackled? You know, the entire First Step reform bill. Problem isn't white men, but the team we placed in charge of federal prisons in terms of administrators and wardens. There have been literally hundreds of them while this treatment was going on. Male and female. Black, white, asian, and hispanic. And not a one of them took on this issue. Think about that. That's a disgrace.
Sniperfish 8y ago
"Moments after the vote passed, President Trump tweeted: "America is the greatest Country in the world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes."" - President Trump's account, presumably not President Trump himself. By now, we can spot the difference.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dpflan 8y ago
Here are some detailed resources for more information: > https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682... > https://www.firststepact.org/ https://www.firststepact.org/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nsx147 8y ago
This is a good step forward IMO. Life sentence was pretty harsh for 3 strikes on drug charges - 25 years is still a lot, but this sets the bar for the next iteration to keep getting lower
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Not meaning this in a combative fashion, but why is only what you think right in this case? I think there are plenty of people that were actually OK with the 3 strike penalty, and more that would be OK with 25 years. Why set the bar for the next iteration to keep getting lower? A large segment of the population does not agree with decriminalization of drugs as policy. Personally I would be a fan of 3 strikes and you are committed to mandatory drug rehabilitation, and aren't let out until you are clean for x number of whatever amount of time seems fair and reasonable.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Because I don’t really care about someone’s moral belief in what’s right or wrong as long as it doesn’t effect anyone else. We have an existence proof that the “War on Drugs” has been a failure, has not made drugs any harder to get, and penalties are unequally applied on the poor and minorities.
    - jimmy1 8y ago
      > Because I don’t really care about someone’s moral belief in what’s right or wrong as long as it doesn’t effect anyone else. Moral beliefs tend to eventually end up externalized in some form or fashion. What then? What if I told you that everything we do affects someone else? This post-modernist idea that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect someone else is a fallacy. Unless you live in an isolated, self sustaining biodome in Antartica, chances are you are impacting at least one other life in extreme cases, if not more. The "Desert Fathers" of the ancient Church, of whom left the holy cities with the extent purpose of leaving the world to not impact others (or be bothered by the cares of the world) ironically, impacted millions.
pkaye 8y ago
> The bill, which is expected to be debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, would only affect federal prisoners accounting for about 10% of the total US prison population. However I think a lot of the problems with the prison system in the US seems to be in the state/country level.
danso 8y ago
Great to see this happen. Criminal justice reform seems like one of the rare bipartisan efforts in quite awhile, especially when it comes to an issue in which the most direct beneficiaries are a non-voting constituency. There was a great "This American Life" episode pre-2016 [0] about a billionaire conservative family -- the Deasons, not the Kochs, but in that same strata -- who, like the Kochs, were passionate about pushing through criminal reform. And then Trump -- whom the Kochs hated -- became the nominee and split the conservative base and attention. The TAL episode was about how the Deasons were so impressed by Trump that they parted ways with the Kochs and backed Trump despite not knowing whether he's support criminal reform. Back then, it truly did seem that regardless of Trump's beliefs, criminal reform would fall by the wayside with respect to the other political issues that Trump prioritized. That the Kochs and the Deasons were so committed to criminal reform, aligning themselves with the likes of ACLU and left-leaning groups, I remember reading op-eds/screeds from activists accusing the Kochs of having an ulterior agenda. But not much evidence has surfaced of this. FWIW, the TAL episode refers to a 2015 NYT op-ed that Doug Deason wrote about how close his life came to being ruined by a felony burglary charge, which is a great read [1]. [0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/591/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/591/transcript [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-with-criminal-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-wit...
- teachrdan 8y ago
  You seem to be repeating a common misunderstanding, which is that the Koch brothers supported criminal justice reform because they care about the fate of incarcerated people. That is provably false. They care of criminal justice reform because they don't want corporations--or the people who own them--to be held criminally liable when those corporations violate the law. This is particularly important for a family whose fortune comes from the extraction of oil.[0] They purchased ads around the country criticizing judges and politicians as "soft on crime," and actively supporting a Republican gubernatorial candidate who opposes criminal justice reform and criticized Obama for releasing "dangerous thugs."[1] From the Intercept: "Koch’s interest in criminal justice reform was sparked not by the plight of overcrowded prisons or racial disparities in law enforcement, but by the company’s own environmental crimes. In 2000, Koch was indicted over claims that it had polluted huge amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen, from a Texas refinery and then attempted to cover up the crime. The indictment came on the heels of a series of state and federal probes that had forced the company to pay what was then the largest civil penalty for violations of environmental law for allowing hundreds of oil spills across six states." [0] Koch Industries has pattern of violating ethics, environmental laws: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pattern-of-violating-ethics-environmental-laws/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pa... [1] KOCH BROTHERS TALK CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, BUT PAY FOR “TOUGH ON CRIME” POLITICAL ADS: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/
nimbius 8y ago
disclosure: I spent four and a half years in a state correctional facility as an inmate. Reducing 3 strikes from minimum life to 25 is fine, but it does nothing to address the fact that expanding judicial discretion just gets you screwed in an election year. Theres nothing to keep people from getting multiple consecutive terms until its just the same as life. The bill also doesnt address perpetual parole. When I was released after having served time, I was sentenced immediately to additional "parole" for a year and a half. This cuts into your ability to go to work in some cases (construction hours start early.) my job as an automotive mechanic started at 4 AM and school ended at 10. parole says i need to check in and be home by 6 pm, so i have to apply for extensions and variances every week. miss one and I go back to a jail term I technically already served. $300 million dollars is nice for training, but training generally sucks in private prison and you have no recourse. For example, in a state run correctional facility you can learn shop math (trigonometry) and a trade. At the private prison I spent a year at (before it went bankrupt and transferred us all to state anyhow) my "education" consisted of painting the floor and laundry detail. you learn nothing, and surprise, are paid nothing because its education not work (work details like this in prison are supposed to be paid.) as for the tampons and sanitary napkins, fine, its not like those were actually much of an issue from what i gather. Did you know inmates have to purchase things like soap and shit tickets? (toilet paper) There are freebies from commissary like those stab-proof pens for visitation, but use too many or upset a guard and youll get a strike for 'commissary abuse' and be restricted from buying things for a month or two. Ever wiped with a piece of receipt paper? not fun.
- jedberg 8y ago
  This right here is why ex-felons should be allowed to vote. Because you still have opinions that matter.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    Only 10 states prevent felons from voting. Many do restrict that right until after sentence/parole is completed. https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286 https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=...
throwaway5752 8y ago
It should be noted that this passed because of lobbying by Jared Kushner, and there's speculation that his experience of his father's federal prison time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner#Criminal_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner#Criminal_convi...) motivated some of it. Another good bill that benefits an even more marginalized population (with no executive branch patrons) is being actively killed because of a single representative: https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/ND-Indian-Affairs-commissioner-on-Savannas-Act-Pass-the-legislation-502974391.html https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/ND-Indian-Affairs-commis...
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Any idea what Goodlatte's problem is with the bill?
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    No idea at all. A sibling comment notes there some mushy statements about working with the DOJ. It's very, very hard to believe that Rep. Goodlatte is unique in his cares or communications with the DOJ about the impact of the bill. Occams razor points to something pettier.
    - cr1895 8y ago
      In any case, he's on his way out.
  - wffurr 8y ago
    “We have been working on this bill in order to advance it, including working with DOJ and stakeholders to address issues with the language,” a Judiciary Committee aide said. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/native-women-abused-bill-bob-goodlatte_us_5c17eafce4b0b1ea387f584b?cnp https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/native-women-abused-bil...
  - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
    Just a guess, but often politics is less about what gets done than it is about who gets to claim credit. Stalling until the next Congress could be someone either trying to take credit or offload blame, possibly not even the person or party seeming like the obstacle, since they trade favors. It could even be something as simple as being able to claim bipartisanship after the switch.
mrbonner 8y ago
One step closer to being the land of the free’er!
zachguo 8y ago
Wow, look at those jaw dropping incarceration stats. Isn't it systematic human rights violation?

130 points by beefman 8y ago

"It bans shackling pregnant prisoners and mandates that tampons and sanitary napkins be available to women." Holy shit. How is this not a thing already?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Things like this used to be what the officer's discretion was for. It used to be that "inhumane treatment" was used on a case by case for prisoners who would take advantage if treated normally (shackles for the prisoner who will run if not shackled, toilet paper instead of tampons for the prisoner that will do I don't know what if given tampons, etc.). Over time these things became the default and decent treatment became the exception rather than the norm. Therefore we didn't used to need a law but we do now.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
"The bill, which is expected to be debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, would only affect federal prisoners accounting for about 10% of the total US prison population." The other 90% of prisoners do not necessarily have them. It really isn't a thing already, even with this.
- moftz 8y ago
  Maybe a judge could apply due process to force private prisons to apply the same protections for prisoners similar to how the federal govt, specifically District of Columbia, was forced to integrate schools in Bolling v. Sharpe. The 14th amendment should apply if it was a state prison but being federal makes it different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolling_v._Sharpe
aerotwelve 8y ago
I'd argue that one of the reasons we have so many violations of basic human dignity in our prison system is that Congress has gone out of its way to prevent inmates from suing for their rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Litigation_Reform_Act Nobody likes lawsuits or lawyers, but judicial remedies are often the only option for relief that inmates have. When you take that away from them, they are at the absolute mercy of the prison bureaucracy. Your constitutional rights have been violated? Tough, go fill out a grievance form.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Felons are restricted from voting in many places, too.
- lurkaround 8y ago
  I think part of it is the underlying costs of putting so many people in prison then having to eat the "for profit" costs of supplying them with tampons and napkins - i.e. necessities. Even then, you can't even do something like hand out diva cups and reusable clothes?
francisofascii 8y ago
There is no need to state obvious guidelines, until the obvious guidelines are broken.
neilsimp1 8y ago
My guess is because the rules were written by men without any input from women.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  You're absolutely correct. HN hates hearing this, but it's true.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    It's actually not true, and that's what makes the lack of these protections so terrible. It's women, who wrote guidelines about how to treat women, and came up with guidelines worse than guidelines that a bunch of old stodgy men in congress came up with yesterday. That's a real problem. And it's a problem that we need to try to solve in "Second Step". I mean, why even have female administrators and wardens putting this stuff together, if they are just going to get their cushy jobs and sit there and try to out "man" the men? The entire reason you're there is to supposedly bring a different sensibility. What's unstated in placing those requirements in this bill, is how much of a dismal failure our hiring programs have been in bringing in people, (men OR women), with different sensibilities. Whether they are male or female, black, white, asian, or hispanic, these positions seem to attract the same sort of people. People who look at the way things are done, and don't see any problem with it. We need to start looking past identity politics and start seeing that issue.
- byproxy 8y ago
  If you read nimbius' response above, you'll have a better idea of why this was. Basically, prisoners are responsible for purchasing their own sanitary supplies (among other things), men and women.
- gambiting 8y ago
  While this is definitely a factor, I'd like to point out that there is a whole range of humiliating policies(like the fact that you may have to go without toilet paper for bad behaviour) that affects men and women alike, and then the fact that women can be just as bad towards other women too. I wouldn't be surprised if a woman administrator made the same decisions because degrading prisoners is considered a good thing in many places.
chooseaname 8y ago
Because rich, white, men make all the rules.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Like the one requiring pregnant prisoners NOT to be shackled? You know, the entire First Step reform bill. Problem isn't white men, but the team we placed in charge of federal prisons in terms of administrators and wardens. There have been literally hundreds of them while this treatment was going on. Male and female. Black, white, asian, and hispanic. And not a one of them took on this issue. Think about that. That's a disgrace.

Sniperfish 8y ago

"Moments after the vote passed, President Trump tweeted: "America is the greatest Country in the world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes."" - President Trump's account, presumably not President Trump himself. By now, we can spot the difference.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dpflan 8y ago

Here are some detailed resources for more information: > https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682... > https://www.firststepact.org/ https://www.firststepact.org/

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nsx147 8y ago

This is a good step forward IMO. Life sentence was pretty harsh for 3 strikes on drug charges - 25 years is still a lot, but this sets the bar for the next iteration to keep getting lower

jimmy1 8y ago
Not meaning this in a combative fashion, but why is only what you think right in this case? I think there are plenty of people that were actually OK with the 3 strike penalty, and more that would be OK with 25 years. Why set the bar for the next iteration to keep getting lower? A large segment of the population does not agree with decriminalization of drugs as policy. Personally I would be a fan of 3 strikes and you are committed to mandatory drug rehabilitation, and aren't let out until you are clean for x number of whatever amount of time seems fair and reasonable.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Because I don’t really care about someone’s moral belief in what’s right or wrong as long as it doesn’t effect anyone else. We have an existence proof that the “War on Drugs” has been a failure, has not made drugs any harder to get, and penalties are unequally applied on the poor and minorities.
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    > Because I don’t really care about someone’s moral belief in what’s right or wrong as long as it doesn’t effect anyone else. Moral beliefs tend to eventually end up externalized in some form or fashion. What then? What if I told you that everything we do affects someone else? This post-modernist idea that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect someone else is a fallacy. Unless you live in an isolated, self sustaining biodome in Antartica, chances are you are impacting at least one other life in extreme cases, if not more. The "Desert Fathers" of the ancient Church, of whom left the holy cities with the extent purpose of leaving the world to not impact others (or be bothered by the cares of the world) ironically, impacted millions.

pkaye 8y ago

> The bill, which is expected to be debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, would only affect federal prisoners accounting for about 10% of the total US prison population. However I think a lot of the problems with the prison system in the US seems to be in the state/country level.

danso 8y ago

Great to see this happen. Criminal justice reform seems like one of the rare bipartisan efforts in quite awhile, especially when it comes to an issue in which the most direct beneficiaries are a non-voting constituency. There was a great "This American Life" episode pre-2016 [0] about a billionaire conservative family -- the Deasons, not the Kochs, but in that same strata -- who, like the Kochs, were passionate about pushing through criminal reform. And then Trump -- whom the Kochs hated -- became the nominee and split the conservative base and attention. The TAL episode was about how the Deasons were so impressed by Trump that they parted ways with the Kochs and backed Trump despite not knowing whether he's support criminal reform. Back then, it truly did seem that regardless of Trump's beliefs, criminal reform would fall by the wayside with respect to the other political issues that Trump prioritized. That the Kochs and the Deasons were so committed to criminal reform, aligning themselves with the likes of ACLU and left-leaning groups, I remember reading op-eds/screeds from activists accusing the Kochs of having an ulterior agenda. But not much evidence has surfaced of this. FWIW, the TAL episode refers to a 2015 NYT op-ed that Doug Deason wrote about how close his life came to being ruined by a felony burglary charge, which is a great read [1]. [0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/591/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/591/transcript [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-with-criminal-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/ruining-lives-wit...

teachrdan 8y ago
You seem to be repeating a common misunderstanding, which is that the Koch brothers supported criminal justice reform because they care about the fate of incarcerated people. That is provably false. They care of criminal justice reform because they don't want corporations--or the people who own them--to be held criminally liable when those corporations violate the law. This is particularly important for a family whose fortune comes from the extraction of oil.[0] They purchased ads around the country criticizing judges and politicians as "soft on crime," and actively supporting a Republican gubernatorial candidate who opposes criminal justice reform and criticized Obama for releasing "dangerous thugs."[1] From the Intercept: "Koch’s interest in criminal justice reform was sparked not by the plight of overcrowded prisons or racial disparities in law enforcement, but by the company’s own environmental crimes. In 2000, Koch was indicted over claims that it had polluted huge amounts of benzene, a known carcinogen, from a Texas refinery and then attempted to cover up the crime. The indictment came on the heels of a series of state and federal probes that had forced the company to pay what was then the largest civil penalty for violations of environmental law for allowing hundreds of oil spills across six states." [0] Koch Industries has pattern of violating ethics, environmental laws: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pattern-of-violating-ethics-environmental-laws/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/koch-industries-has-pa... [1] KOCH BROTHERS TALK CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM, BUT PAY FOR “TOUGH ON CRIME” POLITICAL ADS: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/03/soft-on-crime-ads/

nimbius 8y ago

disclosure: I spent four and a half years in a state correctional facility as an inmate. Reducing 3 strikes from minimum life to 25 is fine, but it does nothing to address the fact that expanding judicial discretion just gets you screwed in an election year. Theres nothing to keep people from getting multiple consecutive terms until its just the same as life. The bill also doesnt address perpetual parole. When I was released after having served time, I was sentenced immediately to additional "parole" for a year and a half. This cuts into your ability to go to work in some cases (construction hours start early.) my job as an automotive mechanic started at 4 AM and school ended at 10. parole says i need to check in and be home by 6 pm, so i have to apply for extensions and variances every week. miss one and I go back to a jail term I technically already served. $300 million dollars is nice for training, but training generally sucks in private prison and you have no recourse. For example, in a state run correctional facility you can learn shop math (trigonometry) and a trade. At the private prison I spent a year at (before it went bankrupt and transferred us all to state anyhow) my "education" consisted of painting the floor and laundry detail. you learn nothing, and surprise, are paid nothing because its education not work (work details like this in prison are supposed to be paid.) as for the tampons and sanitary napkins, fine, its not like those were actually much of an issue from what i gather. Did you know inmates have to purchase things like soap and shit tickets? (toilet paper) There are freebies from commissary like those stab-proof pens for visitation, but use too many or upset a guard and youll get a strike for 'commissary abuse' and be restricted from buying things for a month or two. Ever wiped with a piece of receipt paper? not fun.

jedberg 8y ago
This right here is why ex-felons should be allowed to vote. Because you still have opinions that matter.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Only 10 states prevent felons from voting. Many do restrict that right until after sentence/parole is completed. https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286 https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=...

throwaway5752 8y ago

It should be noted that this passed because of lobbying by Jared Kushner, and there's speculation that his experience of his father's federal prison time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner#Criminal_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner#Criminal_convi...) motivated some of it. Another good bill that benefits an even more marginalized population (with no executive branch patrons) is being actively killed because of a single representative: https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/ND-Indian-Affairs-commissioner-on-Savannas-Act-Pass-the-legislation-502974391.html https://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/ND-Indian-Affairs-commis...

alistairSH 8y ago
Any idea what Goodlatte's problem is with the bill?
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  No idea at all. A sibling comment notes there some mushy statements about working with the DOJ. It's very, very hard to believe that Rep. Goodlatte is unique in his cares or communications with the DOJ about the impact of the bill. Occams razor points to something pettier.
  - cr1895 8y ago
    In any case, he's on his way out.
- wffurr 8y ago
  “We have been working on this bill in order to advance it, including working with DOJ and stakeholders to address issues with the language,” a Judiciary Committee aide said. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/native-women-abused-bill-bob-goodlatte_us_5c17eafce4b0b1ea387f584b?cnp https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/native-women-abused-bil...
- Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
  Just a guess, but often politics is less about what gets done than it is about who gets to claim credit. Stalling until the next Congress could be someone either trying to take credit or offload blame, possibly not even the person or party seeming like the obstacle, since they trade favors. It could even be something as simple as being able to claim bipartisanship after the switch.

mrbonner 8y ago

One step closer to being the land of the free’er!

zachguo 8y ago

Wow, look at those jaw dropping incarceration stats. Isn't it systematic human rights violation?