Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure 68-to-29

[kpete]

Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure


The 68-to-29 vote sends the legislation to President Obama, who has said he supports it.

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

“Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. “For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens.”

Mr. Leahy sponsored the hate-crimes amendment to the military bill and called its passage a worthy tribute to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who first introduced hate-crimes legislation in the Senate more than a decade ago.

more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23hate.html?_r=2&ref=politics

[cliffordu]

1. excellent.

[skipos]

2. Who were the 29? Any Dems? nt

[Bumblebee]

3. I saw on the AP yesterday that Feingold was a no vote? Hope it was erroneous

because on the news they are consistently saying that all 29 were GOP

[pinto]

4. Feingold voted against the bill (it was a military appropriation bill).

The hate crimes aspect was an amendment to the larger bill. Feingold was opposed to the appropriation itself.

[Bumblebee]

5. So he did end up being a sole Dem who, in effect, voted against the hate-crime

definition expansion? Principles are good but this strikes me as wrong.

[pinto]

6. I assume he knew the bill would pass and cast a 'symbolic' vote against the appropriation. n/t

[Bumblebee]

7. I am sure you are right but he still preferred one kind of symbolism to the other

It would have been oh so easy to say I oppose the appropriation but because of this very special and long fought for measure I am voting for it.

[pinto]

8. I suppose. Yet his lone No vote made news. Leahy spoke well for the party as a whole, I believe -

“Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. “For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens.”

And the bill was overwhelmingly passed. Both may have seen it as a win / win. :shrug: I didn't watch the debate on the floor, but I'm guessing all knew Feingold was going to cast a Nay on the appropriation.