Then you're not familiar with the law concerning sexual harassment. Having sex in the workplace can violate the sexual harassment law.
I think I am going to avoid political debates from here on out. They are just way too contentious, produce no results and serve very little purpose...just like politics itself! Sometimes I think I argue just to see myself type. How stupid is that?! ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Jeff: Don't abandon the cause! I like having someone I almost always agree with! We'll get through to these conservative doodooheads someday. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited May 16, 2001).]
Clinton should have taken the 5th. No perjury - no admitting. A common, powerless person would be behind bars or at least have a criminal record for the very same thing. Should Clinton serve time - no - not for this. I think the punishiment of tarnishment fit the crime. When you are under oath, you must tell the truth or take the 5th. ------------------
Jeff, I realize you were just joking around with this thread, but I'm not really sure about others. I still think it misses the point, however. Clinton was not impeached because of his sexual conduct. He was not impeached because of lying, per se. Clinton perjured himself. It doesn't matter why he did so or the way he did it. Yes, Cinton's perjury happened to be related to a sexual scandal. That's immaterial. It's also immaterial that he got on television and blatantly lied about it. What is significant is that he perjured himself. As far as I know, Bush hasn't done that. Hence, no connection between the two, or a forced connection at best. The title of thread should be: "If Bush perjures himself, should they impeach him?" That is the only way it could ever resemble the Clinton situation. And the answer to that question would have to be yes. Everyone wants to turn the Clinton situation into an issue of personal conduct, but it's not--not when he perjured himself. You can argue that he should never been asked such questions in the first place, and maybe you'd be right about that. But that's not the question either. The question is this: What did Bill Clinton do while under oath? If he lied then, that's perjury. It's a different ball game altogether. I realize that politicians of all shapes, sizes and persuasions are unfaithful to their spouses and tell some of the most absurd lies with a straight face that anyone has ever heard. I don't like it, but it happens. However, when the President of the United States (or any other politician) commits perjury, that is not acceptable, even if it's the man (or woman) I voted for. ------------------ The sky is falling!
Bill Gates married a co-worked. So his potential bride walked away from a free multi-million lawsuit? I bet it would've been a lot more pleasant to sue Gates than marry him. dc sports, you'd say that every single instance of an employee having a sexual relationship with a lower ranking co-worker is an ironclad sexual harassment suit? An automatic win for the low-ranking employee?
According to the letter of the law, pretty much, yes. I don't remember the exact wording, but it includes people who have some measure of authority over the person, not just "higher ranking". This is usually interpreted as being in the direct chain of command, but could also include someone with a less direct relationship depending on the circumstances. A lawyer would probably tell anyone in management to be cautious. It would probably be OK for say, a manager in maintenance to date a secretary in marketing. A manager of a public relations, that works closely with the manager of marketing, might be considered to have influence over the secretary's job. The manager of marketing would be an automatic no-no. I don't think there is any question that the President of the United States, direct or not, has authority over a White House intern / whatever her other job was. The side note is, it depends on wheter it offended the person, but the Supreme Court said that in this situation, a person could be OK with it at the time, but decide later that they were in some way harmed. ------------------ Stay Cool... ------------------ Correction, it is Merritor Savings Bank vs. Vinson, 1986. Sexual Harrassment falls under the Civil Rights act of 1964 (which has been ammended many times). [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited May 17, 2001).]
1. When Paula Jones filed her sexual harrassment lawsuit against Clinton, it turned into a case of he said / she said. In that case, the history of sex in the workplace became relavant. The Lewinski incidents (and others) showed similarities -- and would have been relevent in the case. 2. The civil rights act spells out that sex can't be the basis for a hire/fire/promotion decision. Lewinski was hired into an actual job when her internship ended -- How many of the other hundreds of White House interns have been hired into jobs with access to the president? Probably not many. Anyone else who wasn't hired, who was more qualified, and didn't service the president, actually has a claim for reverse sexual discrimination. 3. Sex with an individual who has authority over another in the workplace is defined as sexual harrassment. Consent isn't an issue -- it's spelled out by the civil rights act, in a section modeled after the US Supreme Court's decision in Merritor vs. Vinson State Bank. (In Merritior vs. Vinson State Bank, a bank teller had consentual sex with a VP over a period of time. She received promotions and raises at the normal rate as other employees. She brought the case after she ended the affair. The SC ruled that consent wasn't an issue, that the fear/knowledge of the other person's authority is always there.) ------------------ Stay Cool...
