This is the
dumbest thing I think I have
ever read:
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?
