Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sprry75

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 69
916
The Legacy Collection '08-'10 / Re: Fan's Choice Returns
« on: July 11, 2006, 11:15 AM »
I'll plunk down for both Vos and Revan.  I've failed at customizing Vos three or four times, and KOTOR kicked my ass, so I'm happy about Revan.

917
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Super Hero/Comic Book Movies
« on: July 10, 2006, 09:26 PM »
Having never really been a fan of the Superman comics, I'm unacquainted with Superman's bad guys.  The ones I know--aside from Lex Luthor--seem lame, like Solomon Grundy, Braniac, Bizarro, and Mr. Maalox or whatever.

Batman schools every other comic hero when it comes to bad guys, with maybe Spider-Man a close second, which might be why those characters lend themselves to such great movies.

What could be in store for Superman?

And wasn't General Zod a creation of the movies?  I mean, he wasn't in the comics prior to Superman II, was he?

Anyway, I really liked SR a lot, and hope there's more, but I just don't know what they'd do as far as bad guys.  I'm starting to see why the first movie franchise ended up with Richard Pryor and Nuclear Man.

918
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: A thread about concerts.
« on: June 26, 2006, 08:03 PM »
I got tickets to Tool for August 29.  I am very excited.  Earplugs are for pussies who want to hear when they're old.  Pussies.

919
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Rebelscum
« on: June 26, 2006, 07:59 PM »
I hate Rob.

920
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: I just shaved my head bald.
« on: June 26, 2006, 07:56 PM »
No, name, you just missed it:

I've never gone all the way, razor to the skin bald....

Heh-heh.  That sounds dirty.

921
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 25, 2006, 04:46 PM »
As a liberal, and therefore a supporter of all things evil, it is my duty, Dressel, to point out that banning the night is unfair to vampires.

922
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 03:36 PM »
*sigh*

The good ol' days...  :'(

923
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 12:44 PM »
Still, what do these tort cases have to do with judicial, or political for that matter, philosophy?

I'm a liberal, Democrat, ambulance chasing trial lawyer, and I say MySpace has no liability.  What's your point?

924
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 12:08 PM »


To come back with the suggestion that Democrats would make an inane decision and Republicans would make a good one is absurd for several reasons, but I'll list just a couple:  1) it presumes a connection between "judicial philosophy" and declared political allegiance.  Despite the conservatives' best efforts, the judiciary is an apolitical branch of government.  With some notable exceptions impertinent to this discussion, liberalism and conservatism are vastly different notions in the courts than on the beltway;

You have got to be joking.  Or high.  I am done disputing this absurd claim of your's by mentioning just a single recent case that everybody knows about.  Ready?

Gore vs. Bush, Florida 2000

Decided purely right down party lines - First in the Florida Supreme Court where that kangaroo court of 7 purely liberal judges gave it to Gore, and then again when appealed all the way to the Federal Supreme Court, where thank God sanity prevailed.

Game.  Set.  Match.

As I said, there are some "notable exceptions," that being one.  The fact remains, though, that no federal judge is elected on the basis of his or her political affiliation.  It is an apolitical branch of government.  Am I so naive and/or delusional as to ignore the role politics plays?  Of course not.  Nevertheless, structurally and constitutionally, the judiciary is apolitical and independent.

925
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 11:57 AM »
What a boner  ::)

Who was behind the Smith & Wesson lawsuits?  Oh, that's right: Republican[/b] James Brady.  You know, Assistant and Press Secretary to Ronald Reagan?  He's the "lib er, left leaning politician."  Significantly, it was only after the settlement of the primary case (which involved multiple governmental and municipal entities--not private parties--as plaintiffs)  that individual plaintiffs began utilizing the cause of action as a private right of relief.  Additionally, the case settled between the parties, it wasn't a judicial verdict.  The trial judge's political persuasion--who cares?  He or she had nothing to do with the outcome of that case.

Columbine...uh...okay.  Michael Moore's a judge?  Hm.  News to me.  Was Wal-Mart sued over Columbine?  Yeah...didn't think so.  What was your point again?

Maybe you got your anecdotes confused.  Were you thinking of the North Carolina case where police responded to a scene of domestic abuse?  The one where the husband had fled, saying he was going to go buy bullets to kill himself?  The police contacted the two Wal-Marts and told them not to sell the guy bullets.  The managers said okay (thereby undertaking a legal duty; see above), but forgot to tell their gun department clerks.  The guy showed up, bought bullets, and killed himself.  Wal-Mart settled that case for $130,000 based on its exposure under a well known theory of liability called "negligent undertaking."  Again, it was a settlement between the parties; no judge involved.

I don't know anything about that Rhode Island case, other than that Rhode Island is one of several states that have a strict statutory scheme imposing liability on rental car companies for torts caused by their drivers.  Thus, regardless of whether a judge is a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, he applies the laws as enacted by the state legislature.  That has nothing to do with the judge's political persuasion.  Indeed, I believe that if a judge were to act in opposition to majoritarian legislation, your ilk would call him or her an "activist."

So am I missing something, or are you just talking out of your ass?

926
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: To Catch a Predator
« on: June 23, 2006, 11:19 AM »
I've spotted this show on several times, but this week's was the only one where I actually sat and watched it for the whole hour.  I say keep it up; the law of averages indicates that the freaks that Dateline catches are just the tip of the iceberg.  Any assistance that law enforcement can get in locking these pigs up should be welcome.

In most cases, I'm against the death penalty, but as a father to two little kids, I think any conviction for anything involving kids should be a capital offense.  And not just lethal injection, but a good old fashioned hangin'.

927
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 23, 2006, 11:08 AM »
This is the dumbest thing I think I have ever read:

Quote
America is divided 50-50 along the 2 major party lines, and that judges assigned to positions have either an "R" or a "D" after their name.  One of those is going to blame Myspace.com, the other is going to blame the moron who actually committed the rape.

Dressel, despite what you've been programmed to believe and regurgitate, cases like this have little, if anything, to do with political persuasion or idealogical bents.  Tort cases are, by and large, decided upon the factual and legal merits of the case (there are some exceptions pertaining to peripheral issues, like damage caps and statutory immunity, etc., but this case is so far from those peripheral issues that discussing them in the same context would be premature).  So I wasn't just baiting you, I was genuinely curious as to why you think "judicial philosophy" has anything to do with a case like this?

To come back with the suggestion that Democrats would make an inane decision and Republicans would make a good one is absurd for several reasons, but I'll list just a couple:  1) it presumes a connection between "judicial philosophy" and declared political allegiance.  Despite the conservatives' best efforts, the judiciary is an apolitical branch of government.  With some notable exceptions impertinent to this discussion, liberalism and conservatism are vastly different notions in the courts than on the beltway; 2) it completely ignores the procedural and substantive aspects of the law that have far more influence on the outcome of cases like this than the political persuasions, or judicial philosophies, for that matter, of trial court judges.

There's a procedural mechanism in place that provides for dismissal of cases that fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.  Depending on the parties' various arguments on the nature of the plaintiffs' claims, this case will likely be decided (and my prediction, disposed of) at that juncture.  Whether the trial court judge is a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Socialist will have no bearing on the procedural posture and disposition of the case.

The plaintiffs' tort claims do not invoke any constitutional rights, therefore the various judicial approaches to constitutional interpretation won't become an issue.  It's not like this is a habeas corpus petition challenging Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, or a civil rights claim raising issues about the nature of fundamental rights.  It's simply a question of whether MySpace owed a legal duty to protect its users from offline encounters, and if so, whether that duty was breached--all in all, a fairly objective inquiry that has nothing to do with the trial judge's "judicial philosophy."

So what does it have to do with this case, other than your kneejerk tendency to blame everything you don't like or think is stupid on liberals and/or Democrats?

928
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:26 PM »
That doesn't matter; I find you in contempt.

929
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:22 PM »
By the way, what does this case really have to do with anyone's judicial philosophy?

930
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Your Judicial Philosophy
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:14 PM »
Jeez, I'm about as shyster as they come, and I wouldn't touch this case with a ten foot pole.

Adam Loewy, the plaintiffs' attorney, is a real estate and corporate attorney who dabbles in a little bit of bankruptcy.  He's no "trial lawyer," as we're called by the media.  My guess is he's doing this case strictly for the PR.

I'd love to get a copy of that complaint to see what theories are alleged.  But according to Loewy, the web site is being sued for its "failure to protect her online when they knew sexual predators were on that site."

Let's break it down:

When distilled, there are only so many reasons you can sue--they're called "causes of action."  If you don't have a cause of action, a court can't grant you relief, and the other side is entitled to dismissal of the case.

Unless there's some sort of statutory cause of action with which I'm unfamiliar, these plaintiffs have no cause of action.

To state a claim in tort, you (generally) either have to have an intentional tort (which the girl undeniably has against the perpetrator), or negligence.  To establish negligence, you have to show 1) the existence of a duty of care; 2) the defendant breached the duty; 3) the defendant's breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries; and 4) damages.

She isn't even close to being able to show the existence of a duty--MySpace does not, and indeed, cannot, owe its users a duty of care "to protect [users] online when [MySpace] knew sexual predators were on that site."

(Sidenote: that obviously presupposes MySpace knew, or should have known, that sexual predators were on the site.  It's a long shot, but I can see why a lawyer would at least attempt to make that argument).

Even if it did owe such a duty, it's obligation to reasonably perform that duty goes away the instant the user voluntarily enters false information in accessing the site and its contents.

Furthermore, even if MySpace did owe such a duty, it has no duty to affirmatively protect the users from voluntarily meeting each other out in the real world.  What the claim amounts to is that if MySpace is going to run the way it runs, it should appoint a full-time babysitter to each user to monitor their offline behavior.

Ridiculous.

I suppose there are other theories out there, but I have a tough time conjuring them up.  For instance, MySpace's user agreement does not include a contractual obligation to protect its users from online predators, much less the actions of online predators with whom users voluntarily choose to meet up with in the real world.  Thus, there's no claim in contract, i.e., no cause of action.

Even if you can establish a cause of action, i.e., state a claim for which relief can be granted, there are so many defenses to this (subsequent intervening cause; failure to join an indespensible party (the molestor), etc.), it's not even funny.

This lawyer's capitalizing on his clients because he doesn't want to shell out for Yellow Pages ads.

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 69