Your Judicial Philosophy

[Famine]

The likes of Michael Moore blame Walmart because they sell ammunition.

K-Mart.

Kevin

[Rob]

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.

[Qui-Gon Jim]

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.

[Dressel Rebel]

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.

 

[Matt_Fury]

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.

[Rob]

Politics aside,

Good idea.

[Sprry75]

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?

[Sprry75]

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.

[Dressel Rebel]

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.

 

[Famine]

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

[Deanpaul]

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.

[Dressel Rebel]

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.

[Dressel Rebel]

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.

 

[Dressel Rebel]

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.

[Rob]

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...