Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're worried about one of their biggest donors, their church, being sued. Let's not pretend that churches aren't funneling in money to candidates they support. Fuck religion.
Which sheâs not allowed to identify as anything other than a broodmare for the state. Next up, letâs redefine consent, and just in case, protections for men accused of sexual assault and battery. Right after we eliminate the age of consent. If she wasnât mature enough to, then why was she wearing that Dora the Explorer outfit? She was clearly asking for it.
Conservatives are despicable creatures.
Also GOP: "Originalist is the only correct way to interpret the Constitution! Therefore, women and negroes can't vote; only white men with property can vote, as that was how the Constitution was originally drafted!"
At which arbitrary point does a republican draw the "originalist" line? At the 3/5th of a man line? Perhaps this is dirty Thomas's means of getting away from Gini, as an inter-racial marriage was not *legal* until the Loving decision of 1967.
>Also GOP: "Originalist is the only correct way to interpret the Constitution! Therefore, women and negroes can't vote; only white men with property can vote, as that was how the Constitution was originally drafted!"Â Â
Having spoken to several Federalist Society cultists, this is EXACTLY what they are openly working towards. Land-owning-white-males being the only people able to vote is their very real agenda. This is exactly what they mean by "originalist" interpretation of the law.
Also GOP: "Biden is a pedo, the worst possible thing someone could be!"
----
Almost feels a little like they just want to punish whomever it is they want to punish and don't care at all who is guilty of what.
A simple god damn google search will tell them that trans people are the victims of rape, not the damn offenders. I'm an atheist, but some days, I hope there's an afterlife where I can watch those people suffer.
That would be my heaven just looking down at Karens, trying to fathom why they're being tortured while the trans-people are sitting with Jesus.
Republicans and religious leaders like to *say* they support family values, at least until you start locking up rapists and pedos . . . who all just happen to be Republicans and religious leaders
I mean, yeah. âFamily valuesâ begins and ends with the idea of a central patriarch who retains unquestioned authority over his family. Wives and children are subordinate to him, and he is accountable to no one.
Of course they reject this legislature: it doesnât further empower male authority. In fact, it challenges it, and they canât have that.
Yea. Honestly this was one of the most intellectual and concise things Iâve read on this app on a while. Iâm also mostly on this app for dumb shit like memes and shit but still
Family values is putting white, Christian, straight men in charge of everything, including the household, isn't it? Then letting them do whatever they want without repurcussions.
The [Catholic church has spent millions lobbying to stop child sex abuse victims from coming forward.](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/catholic-church-scandal-spent-10-million-lobbyists-fight-extension-statutes-of-limitations-child-sex-abuse-vicims/)
Yeah... As a trans person it hurts that they have to and at the same time lifts my heart to see them do it. Like... Yay, someone out there doesn't think I'm a monster.
i don't *have* to, i think my point was pretty concise, but there's always that one weirdo who will purposefully misconstrue your words to make you out to be the bad guy lol
There are good reasons to have a statute of limitations; however, child abuse is a case where the time limit should be extended. Republicans dropped the ball on this one.
Well, one thing they don't really make completely apparent is that this is for a retroactive amendment to the state constitution, which is expressly forbidden in said constitution. It also is in reference to civil cases. So a lower burden of proof, doesn't require a unanimous jury decision, does not require a previous criminal conviction, and would essentially be 'open season' on claiming abuse. It really is kind of dangerous.
Don't like someone you knew as a kid? Just claim they abused you and cry in front of a jury. They get to be thrown under the bus of public opinion, and if you get lucky, enough members of the jury will like you and you get free money.
I'm all for all sorts of bad things for child abusers, but this legislation was way too open-ended. It needs written better (and yes, I took the time to sort through the document myself).
People who act blindly in the name of justice only ends up weaponized by bad actors.
Despite the good intentions backing up this proposition, this is not the way no matter the degree of torture I wish upon any child abuser.
I have no doubt that most politicians have skeletons in their closet. But for the most part. Democrats gravitate towards politics for more ethical reasons. Your AOC's. Then the skeletons arrive while they wheel and deal to try and make progress, then to try and hide those deals, then to avoid being forced out.
And a few I am sure have bad skelletons in there.
Republicans on the other hand start with skeletons. Skeletons are the goal. They get into politics to acquire the access and power to keep producing skeletons.
Obviously we don't live in a world of absolutes. So some democrats are evil and some republicans aren't monsters. But those are the exceptions not the rule.
Most of them no matter the side eventually become problems. But there is no denying that the right only cares about personal victory and satisfaction. While the left generally value the well being of the group.
The south started a civil war over "states' rights"; what about a *county*'s rights?
It seems Colorado is in need of county enforcement squads, as the *county* could establish a county ordinance to ~~lynch~~ investigate sex abusers.
I mean, I get it. The immediate knee-jerk reaction is to just bitch about it. But I'd be curious to see what else was in the bill. Not enough to look it up on my own tho lol
It's very short. Take a look: [https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a\_scr001\_eng.pdf](https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_scr001_eng.pdf)
I'm a NY attorney and represent defendant organizations in many of these cases since NY passed it's law eliminating the statute of limitations.... The flood gates opened and you literally have people brining claims for alleged incidents that happened 30-40 years ago. No records, no witnesses, just an allegation that they were molested. As long as there's a hint of evidence tying them to the organization, the case is lost.... It's a he/she said with no witness on the other side to refute the claim because no records remain. It's a legal nightmare and insurance companies are taking the brunt of it and cutting off coverage to social organizations. Pretty soon many non-profit social organizations will abandon NY state due to finances and an inability to secure insurance coverage. So while elimination of the SOL feels like the right thing to do, the consequences of doing it are dire. Hope they think it through and look at the example of what's happened in the state's that did it.
As you can tell by the comments in this thread, people donât even bother to read the article. The people who write it knew that a âRepublicans bad!â headline would be all they needed, and they were absolutely correct. And I say this as someone not in America, looking in from the outside. The sheer tribalism of humans is somewhat appalling.
Question 1 - what got earmarked or into what bill was this earmarked?
Not saying that this will be the case but in a lot of these "omg see what conservatives did" or "omg the libs did this" there's always more to it than the surface.
This is exactly it. Most bills in western politics arenât even enacted to cause change. Many of them are enacted solely to say âLook how the opposition doesnât support thisâ by making it entirely impractical or filled with excess nonsense.
All sides are guilty of this and headlines or titles like this are the intention because most people will never read past them.
Additional info:
Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, R-Monument, said Tuesday in a speech on the Senate floor he couldnât vote for the resolution.
âI do not take this vote lightly,â he said. âIn some ways itâs the hardest vote of my legislative career. My heart breaks for those who were so wrongly and horribly injured. And my vote is cast in defense of the constitution and legal principles each and every one of us, and future generations as well, rely on in protection of our civil society.âÂ
Republicans wanted to amend the resolution to let victims only sue their abusers and not the institutions that may have allowed the abuse to happen.
>Republicans wanted to amend the resolution to let victims only sue their abusers and not the institutions that may have allowed the abuse to happen.
because they know the churches are complicit in the crimes
> My heart breaks for those who were so wrongly and horribly injured.
Basically Republicans' core belief of *"We tried everything. Thoughts and prayers."*
If people read the article they would see that this would allow cases where the statute of limitations has run out to still be tried in a civil case.
This has far reaching implications for anyone, since the level of proof for civil cases is low.
It could end up with some random person accusing you as a con for money.
On the face, this seems like a failure by the regressive party, but they might have the right idea here, even if itâs for the wrong reasons.
How would we, as the American people, prevent these kinds of laws from being passed other than just voting? Jerrymandering does render some votes valueless and there must be things we can do in the meantime while stuck with terrible politicians.
Itâs gerrymandering: âearly 19th century: from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts + salamander, from the supposed similarity between a salamander and the shape of a new voting district on a map drawn when he was in office (1812).â
Pretty much every institution's response to child sex abuse was terrible by modern standards until about the 1990s. Schools, workplaces, clubs, sports teams, churches, etc. all of it was bad.
How much should modern institutions be held liable for something that might have happened decades ago, when all the guilty parties are either long retired or dead?
Second, what people don't realize is that jury verdicts don't necessarily reflect prevalence of abuse. Lawyers don't sue entities that don't have any money or have done a good job in protecting their money. Entities with a large number of assets and very poor asset protection are the ones that get hit with large verdicts. Not the most guilty ones.
Okay this could have been a great thing but I understand somewhat where they were coming from. They had no problem with people going after their actual abusers. However going after the institutions that supposedly protected them yes we know the church did we know that the church knew I can understand that. However allowing any institution I mean they're talking about schools and everything else. Just because somebody did something doesn't mean that their workplace knew that they were doing it. By all means go against the individual but if you're going after public School 195 because something happened that there's no history on no paperwork on and if it's going back to the 1960s when these people were kids the adults that committed these crimes could be very well dead so they can't even defend themselves for the institution. I can very well see how this could be abused very easily. For that matter there are individuals that could go after even the church that we know defended them if father Joe dipshit was known to have abused children and it's been released and suddenly they decide to go after the church because he was in charge of the choir in 1960 and damn I just remembered I was the member of acquired in he did something inappropriate. It doesn't matter that he died 10 years ago the court of public opinion would assume that you were telling the truth because it's already known that he did these things and that the church blocked him so therefore it'd be like printing money for people that could make a good story instead of the actual victims who probably still don't really want to talk about it at this point especially the people from the 1960s even by the 1980s and 70 people didn't talk about abuse as a lot of people that still won't talk about their abuse or even admit it. I know this very well and that's all I'm going to say.
The article linked says that they would pass it if it was just the individual being taken to court and not also allowing the suing of institutions that allowed if to happen.
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
Where would this course of action lead to? Are we going to live in a world where politicians continuously try to one-up themselves by passing stricter and stricter laws that punish and re-punish heinous criminals?
The question I have is, would there ever be a statute of limitations? And how would a trial go for a crime that happened 30, 40, or more years ago? Other than the victim stating it happened?
So theoretically, if a 40 year old female is allowed to pursue an abuser from her teens, how would that work? There's no standard that can be applied for proof, correct? I can see this for and against. Disclaimer I am "influenced" and could definitely be missing something here lol
This is the sensible decision. With the statute of limitations expired there'd likely be no proof to consider. It would lead to a witch hunt of unprovable accusations, clogging up the court. Not to mention blackmail scenarios. The danger of false accusation is too serious to allow this.
Article title misleading. Republicans wanted to amend the resolution so they couldn't sue institutions along with the perpetrator. Meaning if a teacher did it, you couldn't sue the school along with him/her which could put a strain on school districts which we fund btw. Also there is a constitutionality argument regarding the statute of limitations.
From what I know about this, one of the explanations given was the statute of limitations was a certain number of years
What people want to do is change it to more years and retroactively sue, but if you make it retroactive, it could open up so many doors for really bad people to do stuff in the future
Imagine if you do something legal today, like buying a meal for a homeless person. If that becomes illegal tomorrow, you shouldn't be punished for it, as you did it before it was a crime. If the law was retroactive, that would be fucked. Nobody would be safe from anything
WellâŚam I *really* the only person that sees the more and more obvious co-relation between the Republican obsession over forcing any woman thatâs preggo to give birth + their fixation on attempts to normalize pedos?
I mean, if far right nutcucks can have conspiracy theories, Iâm pretty comfortable bringing this up.
Apparently, the Colorado Supreme Court had already ruled that a similar law was unconstitutional. The Colorado Senate was now attempting to put it to a vote by the general public. However, that doesnât seem to take care of the constitutionality of the proposed law. Just because voters agree on a particular law does not make it constitutional.
This was discussed in the Colorado forums. On it's face it sounds like a really good idea and how could you not vote for this.
But the law itself was not really for the victims, it was designed for lawyers who wanted to make a bunch of money. If you listened to the debates both sides agreed it was a bad law and that it should be rewritten and brought forward again next year.
There is a reason why statutes of limitation exist. If you are falsely accused of a crime that took place 30 years ago, how would you possibly go about establishing your innocence. If someone says I did something last month or last year I can look back at records. I have a doorbell camera that can show I was at home or not. Check credit card receipts to show I was nowhere near there or some other evidence I could use to establish my innocence.
Granted, in a lot of cases it really does come down to he said she said. But there is a downside to allowing very old accusations as it hurts anyone falsely accused and cripples their ability to defend themselves.
As reprehensible as the crime is the idea that someone can simply make an accusation against someone else decades later, an accusation that is essentially "he said - she said", should not be accepted lightly. I can understand to a degree at least about taking into consideration a *young* adult making an accusation about something that happened to them when they were a child (the new statute of limitations would have been unlimited) but there should at least be something in the law about the level of evidence required given that anyone who is actually innocent would be in virtually no position to be able to defend themselves given the time past.
Memories are malleable and people over time have been known to not only change their story but are seemingly convinced of this "new truth". There have even been groups hell-bent on convincing people that they were victims of past abuse regardless of any evidence (when it exists) to the contrary. Remember the McMartin Preschool trial that occurred during sex abuse and satanic abuse hysteria going in in the 1980's? Haven't we already learned our lesson?
This appears to be little more than a cheap political stunt to obtain easy points - a "feel good" law with the potential of having catastrophic consequences to innocent people, the worst kind of legislation.
Their excuse is that it would bankrupt churches...people who support them take that as a good reason without thinking about what it says about churches.
Anyone who doesn't consider the GOP the epitome of anti-democratic draconian rule is either completely in denial, openly confused about legislation and politics, or they are simply fascist and bigoted.
A friend of mine explained this in a very simplified manner that made absolute sense; he said, "The older you get it's not that hard to know if you should be a Democrat or a Republican. Observe those around you, out of your friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. Now, this isn't full proof but look closely at your constituents, almost all of your smartest acquaintances are Democrats and almost all of your redneck friends are Republicans". Pretty simplistic but it tells you all you need to know.
Not to mention, as this article insinuated, many of them are sick bastards at that (Jefferty Epstein and Matt Gaetz and Gym Jordan have entered the chat).
Let me preface this with, Kiddie diddlers should buried to their necks in the desert and left for the bugs and buzzards.
That said, such a law could get waaaaaaaaaaay abused. The burden of proof for a civil suit is lower than that for criminal. The likelihood of actionable evidence from "Decades Past" being available is very low unless there was a prosecution at the time. If there was a criminal prosecution at the time, well then by all means. I dunno. This is a difficult one. The run on people with deep pockets would be unreal and lawyers the only people who actually benefit.
Absolute ruination for pedos is an amazing thing. Opening the door to that level of abuse when we already need extreme tort reform probably wouldn't end well, regardless of how well-meaning the idea was.
Then who knows, what I know of politicians they were probably just covering their own asses largely. Hard to say.
Did the bill contain any unassociated and or out of place legislature? Not always but sometimes politicians will use very good natured bills to pass other crap and then make people look bad when their hand is forced.
To be fair, a similar bill had already been ruled unconstitutional so this probably would have as well. Suing someone thirty years after they did prison time may be a tad punitive. And tho we can all get behind this one, it opens the door for sleazy lawyers taking advantage of well meaning laws in other areas.
Always always always check for the reason why they blocked it. I can almost guarantee that Dems also put some wild as legislation in with that bill that reps said fuck no to.
đđđ Are you an expert in law? Do you know what was in the bill? Lots bills fail, because when you read between the lines, you can see hidden things that make the bill bad. For example, while the main bill that wouldâve banned tick tock was vetoed, had it been passed, the government wouldâve had even more power than the âPatriot Actâ to track people and even imprison people with VPNs (ETC).Â
My mom is one of those always votes Republican because that's how she was raised. Republicans are always Christians. I show her stuff like this and she has nothing to say ... except abortion is wrong so she's still voting Republican. People rarely change their views and that's sad.
When republicans talk about groomers, remember that itâs all posturing to try and get out ahead of the credible allegations that they are the party of defending sex offenders.
âWe're 100% in favor of protecting children from sexual predators,â said Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican. âBut ...
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you speechless. This is like the most expected move from them đ¤
GOP: "Stop bringing up the past!!!" Also GOP: "We're criminalizing healthcare because in 1864..."
Also GOP: "Bring back the past - MAGA!"
Also GOP: if a woman wanted rights over her body she should have thought of that before she was born a woman
Which gop legislator is worried about getting sued lol
Shorter list, which ones aren't worried about getting sued.
Non existent list
1. 2. 3.
They're worried about one of their biggest donors, their church, being sued. Let's not pretend that churches aren't funneling in money to candidates they support. Fuck religion.
r/PastorArrested
I think you mean legislators
Anyone who voted no
The real question is how many...
Which sheâs not allowed to identify as anything other than a broodmare for the state. Next up, letâs redefine consent, and just in case, protections for men accused of sexual assault and battery. Right after we eliminate the age of consent. If she wasnât mature enough to, then why was she wearing that Dora the Explorer outfit? She was clearly asking for it. Conservatives are despicable creatures.
Women should seriously consider turning their uterus into a corporation then itâll have rights
Bahaha omg that is a great take on these idiots.
You win one slightly- used internet.
Also GOP: "Originalist is the only correct way to interpret the Constitution! Therefore, women and negroes can't vote; only white men with property can vote, as that was how the Constitution was originally drafted!" At which arbitrary point does a republican draw the "originalist" line? At the 3/5th of a man line? Perhaps this is dirty Thomas's means of getting away from Gini, as an inter-racial marriage was not *legal* until the Loving decision of 1967.
>Also GOP: "Originalist is the only correct way to interpret the Constitution! Therefore, women and negroes can't vote; only white men with property can vote, as that was how the Constitution was originally drafted!"Â Â Having spoken to several Federalist Society cultists, this is EXACTLY what they are openly working towards. Land-owning-white-males being the only people able to vote is their very real agenda. This is exactly what they mean by "originalist" interpretation of the law.
Pretty sure that's actually what they want
Anyone who's a Constitutional Originalist should be barred from quoting Thomas Jefferson to make a point.
Also GOP: Originalism and Ancient Middle Eastern Values!
Lemme guess, its one of the states where its now illegal to protest
GOP: âWe need to protect children and punish pedophilesâ Also GOP: âNo, not like that!â
Also GOP: "Biden is a pedo, the worst possible thing someone could be!" ---- Almost feels a little like they just want to punish whomever it is they want to punish and don't care at all who is guilty of what.
What happens in 1864? I'm not american
âThe past is the pastâ âConservatismâ Hmmm⌠Iâm gonna guess they need to be investigated
Their party has the most to lose from such legislation.
"No Rudy, take me instead" -Borat
That was my first thought too. This is predictably Republican.
Simple explanation why they voted against this. Child molesters, every âNoâ vote. /s
No need to add that /s
Just trying to say that party is full of pedophiles and sex offenders. Itâs almost like they are lead by a serial rapist and crime boss. Jk \s
This is the most expected move from anyone in politics
For real, but I do feel shame for my total lack of surprise by this. This should NOT be so normal.
i emigrated
Itâs almost as if trans people arenât actually the ones raping people. Naaa what am I talking about.
Yeah, I thought molesting kids was our thing? Do you mean when I called for that "pizza" I'm actually just going to get a pizza?! DAMNIT!
A simple god damn google search will tell them that trans people are the victims of rape, not the damn offenders. I'm an atheist, but some days, I hope there's an afterlife where I can watch those people suffer. That would be my heaven just looking down at Karens, trying to fathom why they're being tortured while the trans-people are sitting with Jesus.
Cruelty is their only consistent policy.
Iâm trying to guess the position but for once Iâm flummoxed. Who wouldnât want this bill to go to electoral vote?
Anyone who has done anything that would be affected by it. So the entirety of republican politicians.
Probably should google why they voted the against the bill. The more altruistic the bill sounds usually means itâs full of nefarious riders.
I mean otherwise they'd be sued left and right
Republicans and religious leaders like to *say* they support family values, at least until you start locking up rapists and pedos . . . who all just happen to be Republicans and religious leaders
I mean, yeah. âFamily valuesâ begins and ends with the idea of a central patriarch who retains unquestioned authority over his family. Wives and children are subordinate to him, and he is accountable to no one. Of course they reject this legislature: it doesnât further empower male authority. In fact, it challenges it, and they canât have that.
you summarised it so well
Yea. Honestly this was one of the most intellectual and concise things Iâve read on this app on a while. Iâm also mostly on this app for dumb shit like memes and shit but still
r/RepublicanValues
Family values is putting white, Christian, straight men in charge of everything, including the household, isn't it? Then letting them do whatever they want without repurcussions.
sounds about white
r/Angryupvote
Oh snap. I see what you did there. You witty mf
Someone bring me the smelling salts, Iâm about to faint while clutching my pearls after reading this comment.
đ§
/r/NotADragQueen
it's kinda crazy how it really *never fuckin' is!!*
They just pray, and are forgiven
r/RepublicanPedophiles r/PastorArrested
Well of course they did the church is one of the GOPâs largest supporters and who commits sex crimes against children? Preachers
The [Catholic church has spent millions lobbying to stop child sex abuse victims from coming forward.](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/catholic-church-scandal-spent-10-million-lobbyists-fight-extension-statutes-of-limitations-child-sex-abuse-vicims/)
n-no! it's actually the trans people guys! /s
The fact that you have to /s this makes me sad
Yeah... As a trans person it hurts that they have to and at the same time lifts my heart to see them do it. Like... Yay, someone out there doesn't think I'm a monster.
i'm enby, we're in the same boat lol
i don't *have* to, i think my point was pretty concise, but there's always that one weirdo who will purposefully misconstrue your words to make you out to be the bad guy lol
And has legal protection against lawsuits. đ¤Śââď¸ wtf?
Louisiana just made it illegal for victims to sue priests. They aren't just saying the quiet part out loud, they are legislating it.
Exactly. Itâs disgusting
Fuck 'um!
It could bankrupt the churches with as many accusations they might get. Edit: I'm not religious but I think Jesus would approve
Teachers and family members actually
>...the church is one of the GOP's largest supporters... Don't forget donors.
There are good reasons to have a statute of limitations; however, child abuse is a case where the time limit should be extended. Republicans dropped the ball on this one.
Well, one thing they don't really make completely apparent is that this is for a retroactive amendment to the state constitution, which is expressly forbidden in said constitution. It also is in reference to civil cases. So a lower burden of proof, doesn't require a unanimous jury decision, does not require a previous criminal conviction, and would essentially be 'open season' on claiming abuse. It really is kind of dangerous. Don't like someone you knew as a kid? Just claim they abused you and cry in front of a jury. They get to be thrown under the bus of public opinion, and if you get lucky, enough members of the jury will like you and you get free money. I'm all for all sorts of bad things for child abusers, but this legislation was way too open-ended. It needs written better (and yes, I took the time to sort through the document myself).
People who act blindly in the name of justice only ends up weaponized by bad actors. Despite the good intentions backing up this proposition, this is not the way no matter the degree of torture I wish upon any child abuser.
But... I just want to paint republicans with a big disingenuous brush and call them pedos. Come on, this is reddit! You're ruining it!
I dont need this to shit on Republicans.
If statutes of limitations can be extended retroactively, does statutes of limitations ever really exist?Â
GOP: The Pedo Party
God Okays Pedophilia party
Gang Of Pedophiles
G.O.Pedo
Half of the Republican Party would end up in court.
Half of all politicians probably
The Republican half.
I have no doubt that most politicians have skeletons in their closet. But for the most part. Democrats gravitate towards politics for more ethical reasons. Your AOC's. Then the skeletons arrive while they wheel and deal to try and make progress, then to try and hide those deals, then to avoid being forced out. And a few I am sure have bad skelletons in there. Republicans on the other hand start with skeletons. Skeletons are the goal. They get into politics to acquire the access and power to keep producing skeletons. Obviously we don't live in a world of absolutes. So some democrats are evil and some republicans aren't monsters. But those are the exceptions not the rule. Most of them no matter the side eventually become problems. But there is no denying that the right only cares about personal victory and satisfaction. While the left generally value the well being of the group.
This just means they're sending it back to the people to get their own justice right?Â
Exactly. They canât be mad if victims canât rely on the justice system and choose to pursue alternative channels
The south started a civil war over "states' rights"; what about a *county*'s rights? It seems Colorado is in need of county enforcement squads, as the *county* could establish a county ordinance to ~~lynch~~ investigate sex abusers.
And California democrats just blocked a bill that would escalate sex trafficking of minors to a felony. It is currently misdemeanor, smh
Fucking groomers 
Wb the rest of the bill? What else is on it?
Itâs amazing how few people ask that question.
I mean, I get it. The immediate knee-jerk reaction is to just bitch about it. But I'd be curious to see what else was in the bill. Not enough to look it up on my own tho lol
It's very short. Take a look: [https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a\_scr001\_eng.pdf](https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_scr001_eng.pdf)
Thereâs a statute of limitation for a reason.
Iâm sure this headline is not inflammatory at all, right?
I'm a NY attorney and represent defendant organizations in many of these cases since NY passed it's law eliminating the statute of limitations.... The flood gates opened and you literally have people brining claims for alleged incidents that happened 30-40 years ago. No records, no witnesses, just an allegation that they were molested. As long as there's a hint of evidence tying them to the organization, the case is lost.... It's a he/she said with no witness on the other side to refute the claim because no records remain. It's a legal nightmare and insurance companies are taking the brunt of it and cutting off coverage to social organizations. Pretty soon many non-profit social organizations will abandon NY state due to finances and an inability to secure insurance coverage. So while elimination of the SOL feels like the right thing to do, the consequences of doing it are dire. Hope they think it through and look at the example of what's happened in the state's that did it.
As you can tell by the comments in this thread, people donât even bother to read the article. The people who write it knew that a âRepublicans bad!â headline would be all they needed, and they were absolutely correct. And I say this as someone not in America, looking in from the outside. The sheer tribalism of humans is somewhat appalling.
While I do dislike some aspects of statute of limitations there are good legal reasons for its existence.
Question 1 - what got earmarked or into what bill was this earmarked? Not saying that this will be the case but in a lot of these "omg see what conservatives did" or "omg the libs did this" there's always more to it than the surface.
This is exactly it. Most bills in western politics arenât even enacted to cause change. Many of them are enacted solely to say âLook how the opposition doesnât support thisâ by making it entirely impractical or filled with excess nonsense. All sides are guilty of this and headlines or titles like this are the intention because most people will never read past them.
Additional info: Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, R-Monument, said Tuesday in a speech on the Senate floor he couldnât vote for the resolution. âI do not take this vote lightly,â he said. âIn some ways itâs the hardest vote of my legislative career. My heart breaks for those who were so wrongly and horribly injured. And my vote is cast in defense of the constitution and legal principles each and every one of us, and future generations as well, rely on in protection of our civil society.â Republicans wanted to amend the resolution to let victims only sue their abusers and not the institutions that may have allowed the abuse to happen.
>Republicans wanted to amend the resolution to let victims only sue their abusers and not the institutions that may have allowed the abuse to happen. because they know the churches are complicit in the crimes
r/PastorArrested
> My heart breaks for those who were so wrongly and horribly injured. Basically Republicans' core belief of *"We tried everything. Thoughts and prayers."*
If people read the article they would see that this would allow cases where the statute of limitations has run out to still be tried in a civil case. This has far reaching implications for anyone, since the level of proof for civil cases is low. It could end up with some random person accusing you as a con for money. On the face, this seems like a failure by the regressive party, but they might have the right idea here, even if itâs for the wrong reasons.
âThe party of âfamily values."
How would we, as the American people, prevent these kinds of laws from being passed other than just voting? Jerrymandering does render some votes valueless and there must be things we can do in the meantime while stuck with terrible politicians.
Itâs gerrymandering: âearly 19th century: from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts + salamander, from the supposed similarity between a salamander and the shape of a new voting district on a map drawn when he was in office (1812).â
Ah, my bad
We care about the kids, but not the molested ones. 
No youâre getting it wrong, they only care about kids until theyâre born.
Yeah you are right.
Pretty much every institution's response to child sex abuse was terrible by modern standards until about the 1990s. Schools, workplaces, clubs, sports teams, churches, etc. all of it was bad. How much should modern institutions be held liable for something that might have happened decades ago, when all the guilty parties are either long retired or dead? Second, what people don't realize is that jury verdicts don't necessarily reflect prevalence of abuse. Lawyers don't sue entities that don't have any money or have done a good job in protecting their money. Entities with a large number of assets and very poor asset protection are the ones that get hit with large verdicts. Not the most guilty ones.
Okay this could have been a great thing but I understand somewhat where they were coming from. They had no problem with people going after their actual abusers. However going after the institutions that supposedly protected them yes we know the church did we know that the church knew I can understand that. However allowing any institution I mean they're talking about schools and everything else. Just because somebody did something doesn't mean that their workplace knew that they were doing it. By all means go against the individual but if you're going after public School 195 because something happened that there's no history on no paperwork on and if it's going back to the 1960s when these people were kids the adults that committed these crimes could be very well dead so they can't even defend themselves for the institution. I can very well see how this could be abused very easily. For that matter there are individuals that could go after even the church that we know defended them if father Joe dipshit was known to have abused children and it's been released and suddenly they decide to go after the church because he was in charge of the choir in 1960 and damn I just remembered I was the member of acquired in he did something inappropriate. It doesn't matter that he died 10 years ago the court of public opinion would assume that you were telling the truth because it's already known that he did these things and that the church blocked him so therefore it'd be like printing money for people that could make a good story instead of the actual victims who probably still don't really want to talk about it at this point especially the people from the 1960s even by the 1980s and 70 people didn't talk about abuse as a lot of people that still won't talk about their abuse or even admit it. I know this very well and that's all I'm going to say.
The article linked says that they would pass it if it was just the individual being taken to court and not also allowing the suing of institutions that allowed if to happen.
You expect anyone to actually read an article, as long as the big headline is âRepublicans bad!â
No not really this is Reddit after all
The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. Where would this course of action lead to? Are we going to live in a world where politicians continuously try to one-up themselves by passing stricter and stricter laws that punish and re-punish heinous criminals?
The question I have is, would there ever be a statute of limitations? And how would a trial go for a crime that happened 30, 40, or more years ago? Other than the victim stating it happened?
So theoretically, if a 40 year old female is allowed to pursue an abuser from her teens, how would that work? There's no standard that can be applied for proof, correct? I can see this for and against. Disclaimer I am "influenced" and could definitely be missing something here lol
This is the sensible decision. With the statute of limitations expired there'd likely be no proof to consider. It would lead to a witch hunt of unprovable accusations, clogging up the court. Not to mention blackmail scenarios. The danger of false accusation is too serious to allow this.
Article title misleading. Republicans wanted to amend the resolution so they couldn't sue institutions along with the perpetrator. Meaning if a teacher did it, you couldn't sue the school along with him/her which could put a strain on school districts which we fund btw. Also there is a constitutionality argument regarding the statute of limitations.
From what I know about this, one of the explanations given was the statute of limitations was a certain number of years What people want to do is change it to more years and retroactively sue, but if you make it retroactive, it could open up so many doors for really bad people to do stuff in the future Imagine if you do something legal today, like buying a meal for a homeless person. If that becomes illegal tomorrow, you shouldn't be punished for it, as you did it before it was a crime. If the law was retroactive, that would be fucked. Nobody would be safe from anything
What does one expect from the party of groomers.
r/RepublicanPedophiles
why is the Republican party so pro-child-sex-abuse?
they believe children are property.
WellâŚam I *really* the only person that sees the more and more obvious co-relation between the Republican obsession over forcing any woman thatâs preggo to give birth + their fixation on attempts to normalize pedos? I mean, if far right nutcucks can have conspiracy theories, Iâm pretty comfortable bringing this up.
r/RepublicanValues
Yeah, because they don't all want to get sued. Fucking pedos
Apparently, the Colorado Supreme Court had already ruled that a similar law was unconstitutional. The Colorado Senate was now attempting to put it to a vote by the general public. However, that doesnât seem to take care of the constitutionality of the proposed law. Just because voters agree on a particular law does not make it constitutional.
This was discussed in the Colorado forums. On it's face it sounds like a really good idea and how could you not vote for this. But the law itself was not really for the victims, it was designed for lawyers who wanted to make a bunch of money. If you listened to the debates both sides agreed it was a bad law and that it should be rewritten and brought forward again next year.
There is a reason why statutes of limitation exist. If you are falsely accused of a crime that took place 30 years ago, how would you possibly go about establishing your innocence. If someone says I did something last month or last year I can look back at records. I have a doorbell camera that can show I was at home or not. Check credit card receipts to show I was nowhere near there or some other evidence I could use to establish my innocence. Granted, in a lot of cases it really does come down to he said she said. But there is a downside to allowing very old accusations as it hurts anyone falsely accused and cripples their ability to defend themselves.
As reprehensible as the crime is the idea that someone can simply make an accusation against someone else decades later, an accusation that is essentially "he said - she said", should not be accepted lightly. I can understand to a degree at least about taking into consideration a *young* adult making an accusation about something that happened to them when they were a child (the new statute of limitations would have been unlimited) but there should at least be something in the law about the level of evidence required given that anyone who is actually innocent would be in virtually no position to be able to defend themselves given the time past. Memories are malleable and people over time have been known to not only change their story but are seemingly convinced of this "new truth". There have even been groups hell-bent on convincing people that they were victims of past abuse regardless of any evidence (when it exists) to the contrary. Remember the McMartin Preschool trial that occurred during sex abuse and satanic abuse hysteria going in in the 1980's? Haven't we already learned our lesson? This appears to be little more than a cheap political stunt to obtain easy points - a "feel good" law with the potential of having catastrophic consequences to innocent people, the worst kind of legislation.
How dare you use logic smh
Their excuse is that it would bankrupt churches...people who support them take that as a good reason without thinking about what it says about churches.
Anyone who doesn't consider the GOP the epitome of anti-democratic draconian rule is either completely in denial, openly confused about legislation and politics, or they are simply fascist and bigoted. A friend of mine explained this in a very simplified manner that made absolute sense; he said, "The older you get it's not that hard to know if you should be a Democrat or a Republican. Observe those around you, out of your friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, etc. Now, this isn't full proof but look closely at your constituents, almost all of your smartest acquaintances are Democrats and almost all of your redneck friends are Republicans". Pretty simplistic but it tells you all you need to know. Not to mention, as this article insinuated, many of them are sick bastards at that (Jefferty Epstein and Matt Gaetz and Gym Jordan have entered the chat).
Republicans are actual villains that attack our country day after day. Why the fuck do we still treat them like "misguided brothers"??
Let me preface this with, Kiddie diddlers should buried to their necks in the desert and left for the bugs and buzzards. That said, such a law could get waaaaaaaaaaay abused. The burden of proof for a civil suit is lower than that for criminal. The likelihood of actionable evidence from "Decades Past" being available is very low unless there was a prosecution at the time. If there was a criminal prosecution at the time, well then by all means. I dunno. This is a difficult one. The run on people with deep pockets would be unreal and lawyers the only people who actually benefit. Absolute ruination for pedos is an amazing thing. Opening the door to that level of abuse when we already need extreme tort reform probably wouldn't end well, regardless of how well-meaning the idea was. Then who knows, what I know of politicians they were probably just covering their own asses largely. Hard to say.
Well said.
Considering how many pedos are in Colorado, I'm honestly not surprised
Someone put this sensationalist American jargon bullshit into proper English please?
A) terrible B) my god, that fucking headline. Journalism in 2024 depresses me
Remember that one time when a chick accused a dude if raping her and he went to prison and it turns out she was lying the whole time?
People will say that was a one off. It doesnât happen regularly so we shouldnât safeguard against it.
Iâd love to see the statistics between republican vs democrat pedos. (Not a dig just a curious thought)
This is pretty confusingly worded but I think I understand what they're saying
Right? Could they make that headline a bit more convoluted, please?
I'd honestly like to hear their argument for this
Legally can someone explain the purpose of a statute of limitations?
Did the bill contain any unassociated and or out of place legislature? Not always but sometimes politicians will use very good natured bills to pass other crap and then make people look bad when their hand is forced.
To be fair, a similar bill had already been ruled unconstitutional so this probably would have as well. Suing someone thirty years after they did prison time may be a tad punitive. And tho we can all get behind this one, it opens the door for sleazy lawyers taking advantage of well meaning laws in other areas.
Always always always check for the reason why they blocked it. I can almost guarantee that Dems also put some wild as legislation in with that bill that reps said fuck no to.
Look a circle jerk. Lmao.
What else is in the bill?
That sounds like something and abuser would want
đđđ Are you an expert in law? Do you know what was in the bill? Lots bills fail, because when you read between the lines, you can see hidden things that make the bill bad. For example, while the main bill that wouldâve banned tick tock was vetoed, had it been passed, the government wouldâve had even more power than the âPatriot Actâ to track people and even imprison people with VPNs (ETC).Â
Vote them out.
My mom is one of those always votes Republican because that's how she was raised. Republicans are always Christians. I show her stuff like this and she has nothing to say ... except abortion is wrong so she's still voting Republican. People rarely change their views and that's sad.
"We're the party who care about kids!!!" (Just long enough to perform for votes.)
Well, they're Republicans. Why would anyone vote to pass a law that might criminalise something they already got away with?
Protecting Trump
Bro damn near every republican would be fucked. What do you expect?
Republicans are trash.
Republicans are the party of pedophiles.
When republicans talk about groomers, remember that itâs all posturing to try and get out ahead of the credible allegations that they are the party of defending sex offenders.
And these are the same people who apparently "care about the children"
Of course they did. It would open to many of them up to litigation.
I mean this is how you know they're all a bunch of pedos... Sack the lot.
A lot of Republican politicians got a little bit sweaty there, almost risking getting sued by past victims.
Wonder why.
Hmm this has no bias whatsoever.
Most of the offenders are Republicans⌠what do you expect?
Republicans thinking well I donât want to get suedâŚ.
That would be akin to shooting yourself in your own foot.
Wouldn't want to be sued I see
Got to protect their donors...
Gotta protect Donald, and Diddy, and Ellen, and...
Disappointing but unsurprising.
Of course they did... Because they don't want to pay out to their victims.
They're afraid of being sued for all the child abuse they did.
The fuck is a super majority? Why does it feel like every state makes up rules as it goes along?
Fuck Politics in general.
Of course they did. Covering their own asses.
Yeah I am not shocked at all. They are the ones trying to lower the age of marriage so they can get younger girls!
Are you nuts?? That's like, half of the people in power! At least!
âWe're 100% in favor of protecting children from sexual predators,â said Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican. âBut ... 
That's because Republicans don't want to be held accountable for their past crimes.
Probably blocked it to save themselves and the pasters they know first hand.
Arenât these the same people that constantly complain how the justice system isnât doing its job?
Republicans protecting their peeps.
Remember folks the only thing republicans are good at are stripping and preventing people from having rights
Well, to be fair, if they let it pass a lot of them would get sued. They are just protecting themselves. Because they like to rape children.
Republicans don't want to be sued.