JediDefender.com Forums
Community => Watto's Junk Yard => Topic started by: Dressel Rebel on June 20, 2006, 01:51 PM
-
Lawsuit against myspace.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200233,00.html)
Who do you think bears ultimate responsibility for what has happened?
Here are my thoughts:
1. The 19 year old that committed the sexual assault. If convicted with overwhelming evidence, take the ******* and throw him in prison for the rest of his life. Punish him. Society has no use for this kind of scum of the earth, he serves absolutely no purpose. He cannot be rehabilitated.
2. The 14 year old's parents. Where are they in all this? Don't the parents have some responsibility to know what kind of activity the child is conducting in their own home? Shouldn't they know she is sneaking off meeting men from the internet?
3. The lawsuit against myspace.com should be thrown out. They really are just the metaphorical knife that was used in the stabbing.
I intend to stay away from the following terms during this discussion:
Republican
Democrat
Conservative
Liberal
Communist
Clinton
Bush
:)
-
Link dosen't work.
-
Link dosen't work.
Whoops!
Fixed.
-
Here's how I see it: I don't think Myspace should be sued, even though it is kind of causing the problem. Just put the guy in jail for life and finish it. I don't think the girl or her parents should be punished as far as the law goes, but there should be some serious conversation in the house. As Dressel said, where are the parents in all of this? Are they even aware of what's happening (well, they are NOW, but you know what I mean)? Any careful or caring parent would rightfully check up on what the daughter is doing. I can't get on Myspace anymore because of everything that's happening on there these days. And y'know what, I could care less. I'd rather spend time on places like here than being on Myspace with the chance that some 50-year-old guy is gonna come to my house and molest me.
Myspace should be eliminated. Period.
-
Only reading the first paragraph of the article I'll say this.
These types of things are not the provider's (Myspace) fault. This is a combination of bad parenting and being a naive teenager.
It's the same thing as when they tried to blame Ozzy Ozbourne for suicides - dumb dumb dumb.
As much as I hate myspace, I hope this gets thrown right ouf of court. It's crap like this that will eventually lead to increased govermnental regulation of the internet - which is a bad thing.
-
Here's how I see it: I think the guy should be punished, but not SUED. Why the heck would you sue him? It's not like he took any of your money or anything. Just put the guy in jail for life and finish it.
They're not suing him, they're suing myspace.com alleging that it was the website's responsibility to keep the child safe - and not the parent's. Which is absurd.
And of course he should be punished - everyone would agree to that. And he will be.
-
Ahhh...I get it now. Thanks.
-
There should be no lawsuit. The 19 year-old should be thrown in jail. The parents should talk to some sort of social worker about them not noticing the kid snuck out. And myspace should be told to step up safety, but not sued.
-
And of course he should be punished - everyone would agree to that. And he will be.
Mmm. I'm not so sure about that Zod. Over the past few years, kidnappings involving rape and murder have been picked up by the media a lot more. The overwhelming scenario that jumps right out at you in almost all of the cases, is that the offender has had previous arrests and convictions, and then was released from prison. The offenses usually get worse as time goes on.
I could spend a couple hours right now listing dozens of prominent cases in the media, but I'm only going to do that if someone disputes my claim.
The typical scenario looks like this:
Offender John Doe
Age 17 - Arrested for rape, convicted, sentenced to 6 months in prison and released.
Age 20 - Arrested for rape with a deadly weapon, sentenced to 10 years in prison, served 3 and paroled. Released.
Age 25 - Arrested for kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, sentenced to 20 years in prison, paroled after 6 years, released.
Age 32 - Arrested for kindapping, rape, and murder. And NOW, they go away for life.
Typically there are plenty of felonies, grand theft auto, assaults mixed in.
I maintain that if the first time kidnapping, and sexual assault is committed, and you nail the perp with 40 years and no parole right from the start, everyone would be a lot better off.
-
I guess what I'm trying to say is, these types of people cannot kidnap, and rape someone, then say, "I made some mistakes, and if I'm paroled I intend to get my life together and live on the up and up."
A mistake is eating that Snickers bar at Walmart and not paying for it afterwards.
A mistake is not paying back your buddy for that $10 your borrowed from him at the bar.
A mistake is NOT conspiring and planning for days and weeks to kidnap an innocent child, commit sexual assault, and possibly murder them. These types should never, ever, ever see the light of day again.
And that's what's got me pissed off.
-
I have to say as well that MySpace is absolutely not at fault. They have no obligation to anyone... they are a private site and can and will do as they please. It is the parents responsibility to watch what their children are doing. If Myspace wants to provide some type of service to attempt to deter problems like this then that is great, but they do not need to. If you don't like their site, don't visit it. As for the guy, he forced himself upon someone else- that was a bad choice and he should have to pay for that poor decision.
-
Myspace shouldn't be sued because they did nothing wrong. The only reason they are being sued is the fact that they have deep pockets while the 19 year old doesn't. The parents should of been more informed on what their daughter was doing on her computer instead of hoping that an online site would watch over their kid but then again alot of parents just let the TV be the babysitters for their kids today it seems anyways.
-
The law suit just goes to prove how irresponsible the parents are. Sure, there are plenty of cases out there where, despite the parents excellent parenting, kids are just crummy, but that is the exception to the rule.
I'm sure it never even occurred to the parents to sue until they got a phone call from a lawyer, but Myspace should get off scott free. If they don't its going to be a travesty and open up the flood gates to kill all kinds of business.
-
The law suit just goes to prove how irresponsible the parents are. Sure, there are plenty of cases out there where, despite the parents excellent parenting, kids are just crummy, but that is the exception to the rule.
I agree, some people are just bad, and you can't do anything with them.
I'm sure it never even occurred to the parents to sue until they got a phone call from a lawyer, but Myspace should get off scott free. If they don't its going to be a travesty and open up the flood gates to kill all kinds of business.
If it does get as far as a trial, there is about a 50-50 shot that Myspace.com will win. On one side of the aisle, a De judge with 1 of the big 2 political beliefs tends to blame corporate America, manufacturers, etc. for crimes. They will side with the parents, because myspace.com provided the "weapon" for the criminal to use.
On the others side of the aisle, a Re judge with the other of the 2 political philosophies with blame the criminal and only the criminal, citing that if he didn't use the internet to stalk his prey, he'd just have used the local shopping mall or high school. Myspace.com will get off with a judge of this philosophy.
That's just how it is.
-
As I touched on in my last post, Myspace shouldn't be sued. They really didn't do anything wrong. It's just that a lot of people think if Myspace wasn't there, it wouldn't have happened. It's not like a man needs Myspace in order to rape a girl. It doesn't matter how he finds out about her, whether it's on the internet, phone book, or classified ads. He can still commit assault.
-
It's the same thing with all sorts of things... bad parents are always looking for someone to blame, be it rock music, video games, or now myspace. Violence existed before all of those things.
It's crap - and hopefully the judges can see through it.
-
I agree with everyone else. Not MySpace's fault, bad parents, etc. Also, MySpace automatically makes profiles Private for people under 16, where only people on your Friend List can see your profile - meaning that this girl either gave a false age or accepted this guy as a Friend.
-
So let me make sure that I'm clear on this:
Daughter gave a false age
19 year old told her that he was on the Senior football team, so she thought he was . .what. . 17 0r 18 instead of 19.
Daughter still met with dude.
Oh yeah. Definitely Myspace's fault.
-
So let me make sure that I'm clear on this:
Daughter gave a false age
19 year old told her that he was on the Senior football team, so she thought he was . .what. . 17 0r 18 instead of 19.
Daughter still met with dude.
Oh yeah. Definitely Myspace's fault.
Yup :)
If you give a gun to a chimp (or 2 chimps), and the chimp shoots somebody, you don't blame the chimp.
-
If you give a gun to a chimp (or 2 chimps), and the chimp shoots somebody, you don't blame the chimp.
I sure hope you're kidding...my sarcasm sensor just isn't working like it used to.
-
Just watching the local news, the 19 year old was interviewed today. He said that the girl lied about her age, and he thought she was older, which is making him think of "taking legal action" as well. Very brief, but it helped prove that these people are idiots.
-
If this kid is proven guilty, he needs to spend 40 years in the can, no parole.
This girls parents should have been on top of things, for sure.
Myspace is not to blame here, it's bad parenting.
Kevin
-
If the girl lied about her age, too bad, it's still a crime. These types of crimes have been happening ever since chat rooms appeared. The Internet provider and/or the website can not over see everyones activity they are providing a service to people that wish to use the site.
For years numerous news organization have said "Watch what your kids are doing online." Talk to your kids be a parent, not the friend. Snoop through emails and web history. Talk to your children about the possible dangers of a stranger.
Myspace- not responsible
parents- maybe will now take some responibility in their kids life
assualtor- 20 years tops
-
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.
-
By the way, what does this case really have to do with anyone's judicial philosophy?
-
(http://www.uncoveror.com/judgewapner.jpg)
Who died and made you Judge Wapner Sprry75???
-
That doesn't matter; I find you in contempt.
-
(http://www.cartoon.me.uk/images/smallSlyjudge_RSSize(425x378).jpg)
-
(http://www.perfectduluthday.com/uploaded_images/judgejudy-717488.jpg)
Sorry, my mistake, you remind me much, much more of Judge Judy...
-
(http://www.perfectduluthday.com/uploaded_images/judgejudy-717488.jpg)
"Got a job? Git [sic] one!"
-
By the way, what does this case really have to do with anyone's judicial philosophy?
Judges do come with a philosophy, they're not impartial robots. Because 1/2 the judges will blame myspace.com, and the other half will blame the actual criminal. I thought that would be obvious to a man with as much insight as yourself ;)
-
Judges do come with a philosophy, they're not impartial robots. Because 1/2 the judges will blame myspace.com, and the other half will blame the actual criminal. I thought that would be obvious to a man with as much as insight as yourself ;)
Where are you getting your statistics? 7/8 the time you don't cite any relevant source, and the other 1/8 it's Fox News.
-
(http://home.comcast.net/~Kona_Kane/Smilies/popcorn.gif)
-
(http://home.comcast.net/~Kona_Kane/Smilies/popcorn.gif)
Indeed. This could be good. Pass the salt.
Kevin
-
Judges do come with a philosophy, they're not impartial robots. Because 1/2 the judges will blame myspace.com, and the other half will blame the actual criminal. I thought that would be obvious to a man with as much as insight as yourself ;)
Where are you getting your statistics? 7/8 the time you don't cite any relevant source, and the other 1/8 it's Fox News.
You can see my first post in the thread for "terms I do not intend to use," therefore making it impossible to respond to you. However, I'm sure you've noticed 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. If you don't know which is which, you haven't been paying attention.
-
(http://home.comcast.net/~Kona_Kane/Smilies/popcorn.gif)
Indeed. This could be good. Pass the salt.
Kevin
Sorry I'm late guys, had to get the supersize!
(http://www.wdisneyw.com/forums/images/smilies05/popcorn.gif)
-
If he shows up in here within the next few minutes before I hit the hay, you guys may be needing this one:
(http://homepage.mac.com/annalthouse/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-04-23%2014.25.43%20-0700/Image-71248ADF956C11D8.jpg)
-
Dressel, I've been reading this thread since it started. I'm aware of the terms you're trying not to use, initials "R" and "D" aside. I've been paying attention.
I asked you a question about your source of information. Judicial appointments don't necessarily correlate with the results of a Presidential election. Where are you getting your numbers? Even if you could support your 50-50 split, how do you infer that someone on the bench would would rule in such a polarized manner on this case based on their political affiliation? So again, where are you getting your numbers?
I think Ryan did a great job explaining the lack of substance in this suit, including the possible motivation of the attorney based on his primary legal experience. His question is the same as mine: what does this case really have to do with anyone's judicial philosophy?
PS. The pm you sent me with the subject line "shut up" and the body message "yeah" wasn't very specific, or polite.
-
7/8 the time you don't cite any relevant source, and the other 1/8 it's Fox News.
But. . . but. . .
Aww, nevermind.
Pass the popcorn.
-
Hmmmm... seems like every single person in this thread believes that myspace is not at fault - is that to say that everyone in here has an R next to their name? I'm pretty confident that I don't.
-
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?
-
Hmmmm... seems like every single person in this thread believes that myspace is not at fault - is that to say that everyone in here has an R next to their name? I'm pretty confident that I don't.
Not it.
-
The plaintiffs' tort claims do not invoke any constitutional rights,
Mmmmmm.
Torte.
(http://www.countryclassicgiftbaskets.com/cheesecakes/images/triple_choc_torte.gif)
-
Hmmmm... seems like every single person in this thread believes that myspace is not at fault - is that to say that everyone in here has an R next to their name? I'm pretty confident that I don't.
I'm confident that a "D" judge would rule against myspace.com, and probably impose enough rules, regulations, and financial hardship that it'd shut down. There's enough examples out there that I know I'm right. Yeah, if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, after millions of dollars and time in expenses, that court would probably overturn it. Probably not worth the effort.
Take a look at Smith and Wesson. Some moron of a father leaves his loaded gun in a place where it's not locked up like it should be. Kid finds it and shoots his friend. Smith & Wesson was in the financial crosshairs. The Lib, er certain left leaning politicians threatened to sue Smith & Wesson and all other U.S. gunmakers for contributing to gun violence, specifically in federal housing projects. Thirty U.S. cities had already filed class-action suits. Facing staggering legal cost, Smith & Wesson decided it would rather change than fight.
Columbine. 2 idiots shoot a bunch of their classmates. The likes of Michael Moore blame Walmart because they sell ammunition. This is totally idiotic. Same idea here.
Rhode Island. Someone driving a leased car hits another person causing injury. The court rules that the company that leased the car, not the driver, is responsible. $28 million awarded to the injured person.
-
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.
-
The likes of Michael Moore blame Walmart because they sell ammunition.
K-Mart.
Kevin
-
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?
Nah, he's just telling you about the law, since he kind of knows a thing or two about the legal system.
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.
The 2000 election was a decidedly political event with the biggest prize in the world at stake. Myspace.com pales in comparisson. But in the case of 2000, the 7 purely liberal judges were the state court - and it was a state issue. Kathrine Harris (R) jumping in and inventing the law as she went sure didn't hurt much either.
-
So let me make sure that I'm clear on this:
Daughter gave a false age
19 year old told her that he was on the Senior football team, so she thought he was . .what. . 17 0r 18 instead of 19.
Daughter still met with dude.
Oh yeah. Definitely Myspace's fault.
Yup :)
If you give a gun to a chimp (or 2 chimps), and the chimp shoots somebody, you don't blame the chimp.
I think a better way of putting it would be that you don't blame the gun manufacturer, you blame the person that provided the gun.
-
The 2000 election was a decidedly political event with the biggest prize in the world at stake. Myspace.com pales in comparisson. But in the case of 2000, the 7 purely liberal judges were the state court - and it was a state issue. Kathrine Harris (R) jumping in and inventing the law as she went sure didn't hurt much either.
Okay but still I got this Sprry character telling me that "despite the conservative's best efforts the judiciary is an apolitical branch of government."
Give...me....a....break!!
And he has the nuts to tell me that my prior post was the "dumbest thing he ever read." I think everyone should try his quote on for size.
:)
-
Politics aside, Dressel's making a couple of good points, as have everyone else in this thread (of course I haven't read EVERY post just yet).
This case against myspace.com is completely frivolous and is another illustration in a rapidly growing trend in this country of people refusing to take responsibility for their actions and blaming everyone and their mother instead of who is truly at fault...in this case, the moron who slept with the 14 year old, the girl for being stupid and the parents for not knowing what their child was doing.
There are tons of frivolous cases like this like the moron who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself, a few cases where people sued the tavern they were at because they got a DUI, the lis goes on and on.
Unfortunately, we have judges in this country who like to legislate from the bench, and have even gone to the extreme to cite foreign laws to uphold ridiculous cases instead of doing their job correctly.
-
Politics aside,
Good idea. ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
Brady was a turncoat and was involved, but it was the whole left crew with Kennedy and Hillary running around that was the real impetus behind it.
Yes, we know, Michael Moore is not a judge (thank God). But you're not getting the point. K-Mart had to cave just because of the threat that it would go to trial. It's not worth the millions of dollars and time it'd cost to defend the case.
Look Sprry, I could sit here all day and name case after case where an activist judge (the kind that you dispute the existence of) legislates from the bench, rules against big business, refuses to hold the criminal accountable for their actions, but I'm not going to waste my time. Why? This is why:
"despite the conservative's best efforts the judiciary is an apolitical branch of government." -- Sprry75
That is retarded. Straight up retarded. You're either completely unaware of what is going on, or just denying it. And I don't know which one is worse. Ha ha, you could suck it up and watch 1 week of the O'Reilly Factor and he'll probably cite the 10 most recent cases for you.
Your contention that the courts are "apolitical" makes me think of a crowd of 100 people standing around, watching a UFO plummet to the ground, a few aliens climbing out of the wreckage and after a brief gunfight with police, the cops walking over to the crowd that witnessed it and saying, "Aliens? What aliens? There were no aliens here, move along. Nothing to see here."
Okay doke.
:)
-
I own Bowling for Coulmbine, and I'm gonna pop it in and check. I don't think K-Mart got sued, they just got petitioned to stop selling hand gun bullets.
Kevin
-
So am I missing something, or are you just talking out of your ass?
I'm going with "out of his ass" on this one. 15/16 of the time Dressel makes facts up, 1/16 of the time he lets Fox News do it for him.
-
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.
Look, Clinton appoints liberal judges like Ginsburg and Bush appoints Republicans like Scalia and Thomas. That's how it works. There's no politics in it? Dude. Please. Why do the liberals grill only the conservative appointees and let the libs in easy. And vice versa with the Republicans.
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.
Denial (noun) - A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
-
So am I missing something, or are you just talking out of your ass?
I'm going with "out of his ass" on this one. 15/16 of the time Dressel makes facts up, 1/16 of the time he lets Fox News do it for him.
Oh man, the fractions were more in my favor yesterday. I should have stopped there. Maybe I will now before what I say is only 1/32nd Fox News and 31/32nds false.
:D
-
I own Bowling for Coulmbine, and I'm gonna pop it in and check. I don't think K-Mart got sued, they just got petitioned to stop selling hand gun bullets.
Kevin
Don't bother. They weren't being sued, they caved to the lobbyists before it came to that. That was my point, they knew they only had a 50-50 chance to win, and it wasn't worth the millions of dollars to defend it.
-
Alright... as much as I'd like to let this go on all day long because I love discussing politics with you guys - you all know the rules.
Please make it stop, or convince Chris and the gang to let us have a special area to continue it in or something - but don't make me use the stupid padlock crap...
-
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?
-
Perhaps what the good Doctor was trying to say is that in a lot of cases, some one's oppinions might influence their philosophy in court to a point. Not all cases, as you've all put a point on it.
I can attest that when my grandpa was a Judge, he let his politics get in the way some times. Somthing I gave him hell about often.
Kevin
-
Alright... as much as I'd like to let this go on all day long because I love discussing politics with you guys - you all know the rules.
Please make it stop, or convince Chris and the gang to let us have a special area to continue it in or something - but don't make me use the stupid padlock crap...
Alright.
-
Thanks doc.
Let me just emphasize the part where I'd love to keep going all day long for years on end - in circles, like a dog chasing its tail - like W&P.
-
Thanks doc.
Let me just emphasize the part where I'd love to keep going all day long for years on end - in circles, like a dog chasing its tail - like W&P.
Oh there's nothing better.
-
*sigh*
The good ol' days... :'(
-
I think that the 19 year old should be put in prision for the rest of his life. The child shouldn't be allowed on the internet unattended, and her myspace account should be deleted. As for myspace.com, it shouldn't be sued, but shut down. There have been so many cases like this, and you really don't know who's watching your profile.
I also use myspace, but it's only for chicks and friends. I can live easily without it, and all of my pictures are just my head and my shoulders. I do worry about my sister, because her pictures are worse than mine.
Really myspace shouldn't even be on the net, because it's just too much of a risk for teenagers. Myspace goers get younger every day, and these people are usually more nieve (sp???) than the older ones.
-
Please make it stop, or convince Chris and the gang to let us have a special area to continue it in or something - but don't make me use the stupid padlock crap...
While I would personally love to see a War and Politics forum, I can understand the staff's concern, given with how W&P went at RS.
-
I think that the 19 year old should be put in prision for the rest of his life. The child shouldn't be allowed on the internet unattended, and her myspace account should be deleted. As for myspace.com, it shouldn't be sued, but shut down. There have been so many cases like this, and you really don't know who's watching your profile.
Yeah! Shut down MySpace because a perpetrator went there to commit a crime!
... And let's tear up all of the sidewalks in town, too! I understand bad stuff has happened on them more than once. If there are no more sidewalks, the bad guys won't have anywhere to be bad anymore!
... And banks! Let’s close all the banks so criminals will stop robbing them!
-
Not like that. This site's used for bad things, but I guess your sarcasm sorta showed me that it's not right to shut it down. I just think that parents should be more responsible for what their kids are doing.
-
Mmmmm. Just for good measure we should ban the night as well. More crime happens in darkness so 24 hours of sunshine would be better. I'll call my congressman.
-
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.
-
More important than the Vampires, banning the night would destroy the livelihood of murderers, theives, rapists, and thugs everywhere.
-
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.
I know you guys don't like punishing villains, but now you've just taken your support for them just a little too far.
:)