Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What are or what could be reasons that Jackie as the new majority whip is against Claire's sexual abuse bill?

edit: First time, it is directly revealedto to the viewer that Jackie is against it is in Season 2 Episode 10:

(Jackie) I can't cosponsor the bill in its current form.

[..]

(Claire) Almost every woman in the House supports this bill.

(Jackie) And I can't be one of them. [...] It's because I honestly don't believe in this approach. [...] You never asked my position. You assumed.

(Claire) I can't imagine what that position must be.

(Jackie) I've served in war zones[...]

In later episodes, Jackie phones directly into a tv show to attack Megan.

(I hope the questions is not too speculative, but it seems to me that between lines there are some reasons)

share|improve this question
1  
If applicable, you may want to add which episode this is from to give a frame of reference. I know it's the second season, but not sure exactly where (I'm only half way through the season). –  Paulster2 Feb 20 at 0:41
2  
Moments earlier Jackie says: Civilian oversight is too extreme a step. And moments later Claire aks: Are you trying to distance yourself from us because of the Galloway scandal? - You should put those quotes in your question and say why you believe there must be more to it than that. –  Oliver_C Feb 20 at 21:33

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

As far as I can tell, her reason is never really explained in more detail, so we can only speculate.

As she admits to Frank she killed many people through missile strikes during her time in the military, even civilians. This haunts her, but she thinks that it could not have been avoided at the time. She did what she "had to do".

She does not seem to be opposed to protecting women in the military, but she thinks that civilian oversight is not a good idea. I guess that this is because of her experiences in the war. She knows that the things she did might have been considered murder by civilian standards and that only someone in the military "get the whole picture".

As I said this is only speculation, but that might be the reason why she is against a civilian oversight committee. It would fit with the fact that she seems to have a high opinion of the military.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.