Caltrops - Motherfucking News





	[quote name="I need clarification"][quote name="Damocles"][quote name="I need clarification"][quote name="Damocles"]Besides, do you think judges are morons?[/quote] Actually, I believe he <A HREF = "http://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=16325">does</A>. And of course this is the crux of what he believes to be the problem: anyone can bring a lawsuit, regardless of merit, against anyone else for any amount of money and for any reason. Judges are morons who allow the cases to proceed, and juries are too easily swayed by the tales of scalded laps or gunned-down little kids, etc. I don't know what the current standard is for a case to pass muster with a judge, and in fact I'm not 100% sure it's in the judge's hand to decide whether a civil lawsuit can proceed. Either way, I have the feeling most judges, moronic or not, are inclined to allow any lawsuit that doesn't contain the word "Martians" in the text to at least be heard by a jury. Juries of course tend to be sympathetic to the victim. You can usually tell who the victim is, because they're the one who is sucking on a respirator, or busy being paralyzed from the waist down due to a stray bullet, or couldn't make it to court that day because the policy at the cemetary is no corpses can leave of their own accord during the day or non-full-moon night. [/quote] I'll stop you right there, although this is a hell of a lot more reasonable than anything L_K wrote. (Well, about news... he likes Moore so he can't be all bad.) There's one enormous problem with this train of thought, and it is this: "if judges are dumbasses and we should let the legislators decide everything, what happens if the legislators are even bigger dumbasses"? Except that you should replace that "what if Congress is filled with stupid people with "Congress is <b>filled to the fucking brim with ignorant retards</b>". Hell, I'm amazed that most Congressional Representatives don't require diapers and drool guards. Sure, there are exceptions here and there, but by and large <i>they don't have the power</i>- the ones with the power are the ones with the right friends or family. And unlike judges, where there are layers and layers of reviews, you just get one shot with Congress, because it's an unholy bitch for most legislators to dislodge most laws. (Saying "PERSONALRESPONSIBLITYLIBERTARINPARADISE" or some bullshit like that won't help either, because it'll just mean that corporate America gets to strap on the <b>REALLY FUCKING BIG DILDO</b> before they open you up like the Goatse.cx guy. Does nobody remember what Edward Norton's character DID in Fight Club? That shit isn't made up. Let's face it- dumbasses abound. I'll take the judicial dumbasses over the legislative dumbasses any time. [/quote] First off, I think you're still arguing something other than what L_K is, and I am. The tobacco decisions set no precedent whatsoever, other than the idea that state attorneys general understand now their chances of success improve greatly when they work together (unless a new administration is elected while the lawsuit is in progress and decides the case against Microsoft isn't really worth pursuing after all). No laws, real or imagined, were written or overruled by the decision in the tobacco cases. L_K seems to be saying that a decision against an entire industry in a lawsuit has the same effect as regulatory legislation enacted by congress ("crippling the industry and lining the public coffers with cash"), and this equivalency in effect means the decision is a de facto law. From what I can tell, L_K does favor some sort of regulation on large businesses, he'd just prefer that regulation be the result of legislation enacted via the normal legislative <A HREF = "http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html">process</A>. You seem to be saying due to judicial review, decisions made in a courtroom are more likely to represent the best interests of the general citizenry against corporations. But these judgements (despite their name) are usually made by juries. When a woman pours McDonald's coffee into her lap and is awarded $20 million for it, that's the result of twelve people hearing her tale of woe. The judge actually slashed the amount drastically following the announcement of the award. Further, McDonald's could choose to appeal the decision all the way up the court ladder if they wanted. They certainly have more resources to do so than the woman does to fight them. Finally, what does the decision do for the rest of us? So McDonald's adds a "WARNING: COFFEE IS HOT" label to their coffee cups. Is that consumer protection? Does that protect the next guy from being scalded? Probably not.[/quote]