Your input is requested...

[j2k4]

In our recent and current Supreme Court appointment processes, I have observed and heard on several occasions the idea expressed (by minority and women's rights advocates), that rights ought to be continually expanded (unendingly, I guess) as an ongoing imperative of the Court.

The idea is only expressed in the most generic terms, and only by these groups.

I have been baffled as to what is meant by these groups, and how one (in the personage(s) of the Supreme Court) goes about "expanding" rights.

Whence do new rights arise?

By what process could a felt "need" for a new right be determined?

[vidcc]

I'm sure you have a specific chomping block to bite down on and I am sure I am going to omit that here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new rights". as oppose to rights that should not have been denied to begin with. Why did it take an amendment to abolish slavery when the intention of the framers was clear "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Slaves were wrongly considered property and not "men".
I realise that there was a whole "birth of the nation" going on and ratifications from various states took time but it shouldn't have needed a specific amendment IMO.

[j2k4]

I'm sure you have a specific chomping block to bite down on and I am sure I am going to omit that here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new rights". as oppose to rights that should not have been denied to begin with. Why did it take an amendment to abolish slavery when the intention of the framers was clear "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Slaves were wrongly considered property and not "men".
I realise that there was a whole "birth of the nation" going on and ratifications from various states took time but it shouldn't have needed a specific amendment IMO.

No "chomping block", but I'm sure several thoughts will be teased from my fertile mind as this thread gathers responses (IF it does :huh: ).

I'm am not sure what these groups meant by "new rights" either, that is why I have asked.

[MediaSlayer]

j it's just a straightforward attempt to gain political ground by those who are currently under attack from the reactionary occupants of the white house who see this period we are in now as a good time to take all of our rights away. i.e. property rights, privacy rights, free speech, ect...

[j2k4]

j it's just a straightforward attempt to gain political ground by those who are currently under attack from the reactionary occupants of the white house who see this period we are in now as a good time to take all of our rights away. i.e. property rights, privacy rights, free speech, ect...

Really.

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

How come the ACLU (which presumes to speak for everyone :dry: ), isn't making any similar noises?

In any case, they spoke of "continually-expanding rights", not safe-guarding rights, or recovering lost rights.

If that had been their intent, that would have been how they worded their plaints, make no mistake.

[MediaSlayer]

youll have to wait now as my internet time is up:(

[j2k4]

youll have to wait now as my internet time is up:(

Sorry to hear that, 'Slayer. :(

[Busyman]

j it's just a straightforward attempt to gain political ground by those who are currently under attack from the reactionary occupants of the white house who see this period we are in now as a good time to take all of our rights away. i.e. property rights, privacy rights, free speech, ect...

Really.

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

How come the ACLU (which presumes to speak for everyone :dry: ), isn't making any similar noises?

In any case, they spoke of "continually-expanding rights", not safe-guarding rights, or recovering lost rights.

If that had been their intent, that would have been how they worded their plaints, make no mistake.
Sighhhhh I'm sure wherever you heard this "expansion" there was an "expounding" on it. Let it out already.

vid did make a good point about slavery though. An amendment was added but what was already there should have covered it.

Wtf is "the Court" doing "expanding" rights anyway?

[j2k4]

Really.

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

How come the ACLU (which presumes to speak for everyone :dry: ), isn't making any similar noises?

In any case, they spoke of "continually-expanding rights", not safe-guarding rights, or recovering lost rights.

If that had been their intent, that would have been how they worded their plaints, make no mistake.
Sighhhhh I'm sure wherever you heard this "expansion" there was an "expounding" on it. Let it out already.

Wrong, Kemo Sabe.

As I told vid, I'm looking for answers-I'm not baiting a "trap".

vid did make a good point about slavery though. An amendment was added but what was already there should have covered it.

Quite right; a good point, but not at all relevant to the topic.

Wtf is "the Court" doing "expanding" rights anyway?

Another good question, precursive or coincidental to my own, but, hey-I asked first.

We can get to yours afterwards, or start another thread. ;)

[vidcc]

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?


Can you give an example of civil liberties denied to white guys?

[j2k4]

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?


Can you give an example of civil liberties denied to white guys?

Not exclusively, but again, that isn't the topic.

I'm asking (listen closely, now) what does it mean to say, "the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities".

I'd ask the same question if anyone sought to expand rights for whitey.

Get it?

[vidcc]

vid did make a good point about slavery though. An amendment was added but what was already there should have covered it.

Quite right; a good point, but not at all relevant to the topic.


I think it is relevant.

In trying to find out what is a new right one must decide if it is indeed a new right or just "expanding" the rights of those that have their rights denied.
So I used slavery as an example. The "liberty for all" should have meant just that if one reads it at face value text. The fact is that slaves where excluded because they where considered property and not men. This is obviously incorrect so the 13th. Amendment had to be made. (very simplified)

So for the sake of the point lets say the 13th. amendment doesn't exist and the case came before the supreme court today. One would assume that slavery would be ruled unconstitutional (or at least one would hope), and slaves would be set free...... Would the freedom be a "new right" for the slaves or a right they already have but were denied?

[vidcc]

Can you give an example of civil liberties denied to white guys?

Not exclusively, but again, that isn't the topic.

I'm asking (listen closely, now) what does it mean to say, "the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities".

I'd ask the same question if anyone sought to expand rights for whitey.

Get it? I do get it but you made a specific point about "who speaks for white guys" I asked the question to find out if they needed speaking for.

"the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities" may just mean that a level playing field hasn't yet been achieved so there is more work to be done.

I do realise you suspect that they want to go beyond that point, and if they do I will stand next to you when crying foul.

[j2k4]

Not exclusively, but again, that isn't the topic.

I'm asking (listen closely, now) what does it mean to say, "the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities".

I'd ask the same question if anyone sought to expand rights for whitey.

Get it? I do get it but you made a specific point about "who speaks for white guys" I asked the question to find out if they needed speaking for.

"the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities" may just mean that a level playing field hasn't yet been achieved so there is more work to be done.

I do realise you suspect that they want to go beyond that point, and if they do I will stand next to you when crying foul.

Then if you buy this scenario by which you posit women and minorities are due some corrective action by the court (which must be regarded as compensatory in nature, and akin to equal opportunity), how would you propose it be written as to be constitutional?

You would be specifically weighting the document in a way that it is not, currently...any "advantage" held by the majority (whitey) is not enumerated thus in the constitution, and there is certainly no shortage of compensatory law on the books already-what is left to do on that score, do you think?

[JunkBarMan]

Do they want to remove the words: men, endowed, and any other form of he, him, or man mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and replace them with words of their choosing?


As long as we can still have cheerleaders, I'm cool with this.

[Biggles]

A tricky one this.

Is their really such a thing as "new rights". The freedom to go about ones business without fear or favour is (I assume we all agree) the one basic "right". This can be thought of as a plural in that there are subsets such as freedom to work, travel, not have ones health impinged upon etc.,

Of course some rights "conflict" where they impinge on the rights of others. For example, the use of blue asbestos might be a cheaper building material but a builder does not have the right to cut his overheads and use it. This might be seen as a limitation of business acumen but health rights have simply taken precedence. From a fairly simple start it therefore quickly descends into a legal minefield as to which (or whose) rights take precedence (Wade vs Roe perhaps :) ).

With regards positive discrimination etc., I am not sure how things stand as I don't think that is legal over here.

There is obviously a danger that every viewpoint and fad can become a right and whilst, say those against spanking kids or the use of gerbils for powering combustion engines have valid points to make, I am not sure that they come under the banner of rights. Commonsense, good parenting and general consideration for the creatures we share a planet with perhaps, but "rights" is perhaps taking things too far.

Bizarrely, although we have a much larger non-Christian population in Europe (Athiest, Agnostic, Muslim Pagan and others) we have not tied ourselves in knots over Christmas trees. I am not sure how widespread this issue is in the US though (may be just a few towns?). However, the concept that it is a right not to be offended by a tree in December is an odd one. If the tree commerated a battle or the execution of some foreign horde then perhaps yes. The only anti-tree people I ever met were ultra Wee-Free Christians who viewed the tree as a Pagan intrusion into Christianity.

So with regards slavery, was there a need for an emanicipation? "All men are born equal" all it required was to acknowledge that Africans are men.

I am probably going to sound like a grumpy curmudgeon here but we should be using the word respect more and rights less. (this is not an endorsement of the Blairite concept of respect though :dry: )

[j2k4]

It seems that certain groups somehow would prefer a more specific enumeration which accords a right specifically to them; a bit impractical, but there you have it.

You've said a mouthful about the Christmas/Christianity issue, Les, but you really would have to be here to appreciate it, I think.

The "continued expansion of rights" is quite literally non-specific.

They want more, period, and they'll let us know as it occurs.

Perhaps NAMBLA will sue for legal recognition (with the ACLU's help, of course).

JunkBarMan-

I'm with you on the cheerleader thingie. :)

[Biggles]

I saw some cheerleaders this summer at our annual festival


Who says everything from the US is bad. :naughty: :ph34r:

[Santa]

in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)

would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)

in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited

one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking

last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.

evolution of rights?

[Biggles]

in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)

would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)

in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited

one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking

last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.

evolution of rights?


Interesting

Scotland is prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places next March. At the moment pubs are busy submitting beer garden plans to local councils. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding noise over here given the less than intoverted nature of Scottish socialising.

I would agree though, that much of what passes as "new rights" is simply current thinking on everyday issues such as smoking vs health.

[j2k4]

in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)

would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)

in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited

one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking

last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.

evolution of rights?


Interesting

Scotland is prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places next March. At the moment pubs are busy submitting beer garden plans to local councils. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding noise over here given the less than intoverted nature of Scottish socialising.

I would agree though, that much of what passes as "new rights" is simply current thinking on everyday issues such as smoking vs health.

Tragic, here, that the quest for expanded rights has had a devolutionary affect on bars (pubs), which are dying a slow, horrible death.

Zed-

You are going in the wrong direction.

These people speak as if any whim should be indulged, if only a court can be found in which the judge pronounces positively on whatever.

Their rhetoric is indistinct and vague, which is a rather scatter-shot approach which has nonetheless been pretty successful (for them).

Let's say they hold an "officially" undisclosed agenda.

[JunkBarMan]

in relation to first post and as you requested an input (non specified)

would it not be absurd if "rights" and laws did not change at the same time as we change?
that would be also dangerous due to oportunists etc.
although sometimes the evolution of "rights" goes weird paths
eg.
(this example is more about laws than rights although..)

in norway last may
- smoking inside all public buildings /restaurants etc was prohibited

one month later
- billions of new terraces where created by cafe owners etc (smokers could smoke outside)
This improoved the social capabilities and general "social space" of the generally introvert viking

last week
-the governement is now pushing a new law that will close all cafes/bars/restaurants
by 10 pm due to the increased "street noise" caused by the smokers outside.

evolution of rights?


My opinion:

I think this is a very fair and non-discriminatory route taken by the Norway government. It lets smokers smoke, non-smokers not smoke and they both can exist in the same place at the same time, relatively speaking.

My question to you 100% is: Did the people in the neighborhood or area push for this 10 p.m. ban, or was this something the government just saw fit to implement?

In my opinion this 10 p.m. ban seems a bit shortsighted and should be debated futher until a better solution is arrived upon. This of course is without knowing any other facts then the few that have been presented to me.

[MediaSlayer]

Can you give an example of civil liberties denied to white guys?

Not exclusively, but again, that isn't the topic.

I'm asking (listen closely, now) what does it mean to say, "the court must continue to expand rights for women and/or minorities".

I'd ask the same question if anyone sought to expand rights for whitey.

Get it?

I misunderstood your original post, which does not specifically say what you said above


In our recent and current Supreme Court appointment processes, I have observed and heard on several occasions the idea expressed (by minority and women's rights advocates), that rights ought to be continually expanded (unendingly, I guess) as an ongoing imperative of the Court.

The idea is only expressed in the most generic terms, and only by these groups.

I have been baffled as to what is meant by these groups, and how one (in the personage(s) of the Supreme Court) goes about "expanding" rights.

Whence do new rights arise?

By what process could a felt "need" for a new right be determined?

I am not an expert in grammar but it seems to me the literal interpretation of your original post was only talking about expanded rights in general, not expanded rights for specific groups. I know the first thing you will say is "but those groups only exist to further their own agendas/causes and you should have known that i meant..."

2 problems with that:
1 - i have a tendency to take things literally, and miss things like that.

2 - i don't always think of those groups behaving that way because i myself, if i started a group like that, would not be so self serving with respect to pushing the groups own narrow agenda as opposed to acting on behalf of society in general

[Santa]

@JunkBar - yes it was the peoples living in those areas which demanded somekind of control of the noise created on the streets.
This is the result.

[Busyman]

Aww ffs no one knows the context of the statement.

As stated it would mean "The court wants to give extra (previously not given) rights to women and minorities."

SHit.

Someone please go on as to what rights they don't have now. :dry:

[j2k4]

your original post was only talking about expanded rights in general, not expanded rights for specific groups. I know the first thing you will say is "but those groups only exist to further their own agendas/causes and you should have known that i meant..."

No, I won't say that, but I will say that you've unintentionally helped me clarify my question.

If I may, borrowing from your post-

They seem to be after 'generally expanded rights for only those specific groups'.

How's that?

[MediaSlayer]

i still think it's a defense mechanism of some sort,

say for instance, i have a cobbler sitting on a table. you walk up, and start eating it without permission. while it may not be a *good* solution, one solution for me to solve the problem would be to start baking a pie.

now as for, do minorities and women have equal rights in america? in practice, no.

j2k there was one case, and i'm sure you had to have heard about it, of an illegal immigrant from mexico tried to sue the georia dmv for not providing the materials in spanish, citing discrimination, or something to that effect. i probably have the details wrong, but it made the paper or the news, i can't remember which. the supreme court ruled against him.

[j2k4]

i still think it's a defense mechanism of some sort,

say for instance, i have a cobbler sitting on a table. you walk up, and start eating it without permission. while it may not be a *good* solution, one solution for me to solve the problem would be to start baking a pie.

now as for, do minorities and women have equal rights in america? in practice, no.

j2k there was one case, and i'm sure you had to have heard about it, of an illegal immigrant from mexico tried to sue the georia dmv for not providing the materials in spanish, citing discrimination, or something to that effect. i probably have the details wrong, but it made the paper or the news, i can't remember which. the supreme court ruled against him.


Yes, yes, but:

Beyond especially legislating "rights" for special interests, hearts only change with experience and time, and such cannot be legislated.

As to my point, let me attempt to refine further:

What is it, to urge that "MORE RIGHTS!!!" be created, then abstain from enumerating some sort of "wish list"?

To demure is to leave the matter in the hands of others, which surely implies a high degree of trust in whatever agency /entity is entrusted with pursuing extended rights, and also in the relative surety of their success.

One also might easily infer that whatever agenda exists is well-known to the demurers, whose demurrals are not without purpose-don't you think? ;)

[MediaSlayer]

regardless of when they want to see these things happen,

they probably just want to see some extra rights given to those groups as a form of "positive discrimination" as mentioned by another poster.

[j2k4]

regardless of when they want to see these things happen,

they probably just want to see some extra rights given to those groups as a form of "positive discrimination" as mentioned by another poster.

I agree, but mentioned as the most prominent feature of a set of remarks being solicited in reaction to the pending confirmation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

To what other possible end a not-so-subtle (and incredibly inappropriate) "reminder" of expected judicial behavior?

[MediaSlayer]

without knowing the exact circumstances, and without the means to be on the internet for hours trying to find a cogent answer, i would say the included it in order to paint the nominee as being unmerciful or something similar in order to discredit the nominee.


To what other possible end a not-so-subtle (and incredibly inappropriate) "reminder" of expected judicial behavior?

i don't think they are terribly concerned about the behaviour of the bush appointees, but that's just a guess. i would guess it's the position(chief justice) and the tenure that is more frightening. too much change in too little time, that type of thing. i do not think it is fitting judicial behavior tho' to come up with new rights(no pun intended) or rule that way. what is in the constitution is fine, but what we have done as a nation is change it to read whatever we want it to read, to fit the circumstance and be able to say "hey look, i have a right to do this, it says so right here" even when the meaning that our forefathers meant is clear.

[j2k4]

Uh-huh. :)

[MediaSlayer]

wipe that smile off yer face:angry:


:)

[MediaSlayer]

whoa the quick respond button is QUICK now

[j2k4]

whoa the quick respond button is QUICK now

Uh-huh.:)

[clocker]

In our recent and current Supreme Court appointment processes, I have observed and heard on several occasions the idea expressed (by minority and women's rights advocates), that rights ought to be continually expanded (unendingly, I guess) as an ongoing imperative of the Court.

The idea is only expressed in the most generic terms, and only by these groups.

I have been baffled as to what is meant by these groups...
Of course you are.
Being part of a group, namely white, Protestant males, whose rights have always been preeminent, how could you understand the desire of a minority to use the court system to level the playing field?

And why shouldn't they seek confirmation (not "expansion") in black text law of the very same rights that you have always assumed (correctly) applied to you?

[j2k4]

Of course you are.
Being part of a group, namely white, Protestant males, whose rights have always been preeminent, how could you understand the desire of a minority to use the court system to level the playing field?

And why shouldn't they seek confirmation (not "expansion") in black text law of the very same rights that you have always assumed (correctly) applied to you?

I would assume an impetus to "level the playing field", and would also assume the Court's answering imperative to be (correctly) negative.

Leaving aside the topic of gay marriage (a state's rights issue), confirmation already exists, and, as I've said, human hearts change in the course of time, not as the result of a court's decision; after all, are we not still hashing over abortion?

I would also assume these groups can be held to their rhetoric; if they say expansion, I'll assert my right to forego your interpretation of the word.

If confirmation is what they mean, let them say that, instead.

[clocker]

I would assume an impetus to "level the playing field", and would also assume the Court's answering imperative to be (correctly) negative.
And why is the Court "correct" in maintaining inequity?

Leaving aside the topic of gay marriage (a state's rights issue), confirmation already exists, and, as I've said, human hearts change in the course of time, not as the result of a court's decision; after all, are we not still hashing over abortion?
Why are gay marriage and abortion not considered human rights issues, which would elevate them them to Federal purview instead of the capricious whim of individual states? What differentiates say, slavery from gay marriage?

On a side note...
I read this week of a delegation of Iraqi officials who were brought to the US to observe our hallowed democracy in action.
They left, appalled, several days early.
The gap between the democracy we preach (and are trying to cram down their throats) and the democracy we practice was too jarring.

As brilliant and far-seeing as the founding fathers may have been, expecting their vision to guide us through a world they would not even recognize has lead to some of the most convoluted and twisted logic imaginable.

Maybe it's time to download and install Constitution v.2.0.

[j2k4]

On a side note...
I read this week of a delegation of Iraqi officials who were brought to the US to observe our hallowed democracy in action.
They left, appalled, several days early.
The gap between the democracy we preach (and are trying to cram down their throats) and the democracy we practice was too jarring.

As brilliant and far-seeing as the founding fathers may have been, expecting their vision to guide us through a world they would not even recognize has lead to some of the most convoluted and twisted logic imaginable.

Maybe it's time to download and install Constitution v.2.0.

I imagine they were, and that they were as appalled as we are disgusted.

It would be well for us to acknowledge that the "issues", as it were, are merely a murky play being acted-out on a rickety and largely corrupt political structure which is rootless due to it's distance from it's own origins.

If you actually advocate a Constitutional Convention, I'm game.

As to "maintaining inequity", that is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I believe they ask for compensatory rights/treatment, which has no place in the Constitution (I'd be glad to hear your case, though); however, if you dig reverse discrimination, I guess that's for you.

In any case, the making of law is the province of the legislature.

If you can't get your representatives to grant these rights you deem so essential, the proper place to address this concern is the voting booth.

The urge to speed the process by accessing the courts is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so I suggest you get the Con-con idea rolling, huh?

Don't be lazy, now...

[clocker]

I imagine they were, and that they were as appalled as we are disgusted.

It would be well for us to acknowledge that the "issues", as it were, are merely a murky play being acted-out on a rickety and largely corrupt political structure which is rootless due to it's distance from it's own origins.
Oh, oh...we agree.

Scary, that.

If you actually advocate a Constitutional Convention, I'm game.

As to "maintaining inequity", that is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I believe they ask for compensatory rights/treatment, which has no place in the Constitution (I'd be glad to hear your case, though); however, if you dig reverse discrimination, I guess that's for you.
I would consider some pro-active "reverse discrimination" to be a fair response to the institutionalized discrimination that's been in place for the last few centuries..so OK, thanks.

In any case, the making of law is the province of the legislature.

If you can't get your representatives to grant these rights you deem so essential, the proper place to address this concern is the voting booth.
Ah yes, our representatives.
You mean the same group of folks who have rushed Bush's agenda into law despite overwhelming public opposition?
Case in point...new legislation shielding gun manufacturers/sellers from any sort of legal liability for the product they purvey.
Bush can't wait to sign this and satisfy his obligation to perhaps the most powerful special interest group in existence ( the NRA), but how is this in any way to be construed as beneficial to "we the people"?
Our "representatives " are forced from day one of their tenure to cater to moneyed special interests simply so they can begin their campaign for reelection. Any thought of looking out for our best interests is quickly subsumed by the scrabble to get and maintain tenure.
Right.
The system really works, doesn't it?

The urge to speed the process by accessing the courts is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so I suggest you get the Con-con idea rolling, huh?

Don't be lazy, now...
I am constitutionally lazy ( in all senses of the phrase), so don't hold your breath.

[Busyman]

You mean the same group of folks who have rushed Bush's agenda into law despite overwhelming public opposition?
Case in point...new legislation shielding gun manufacturers/sellers from any sort of legal liability for the product they purvey.
This is a weird one.

Gun manufacturers should not be liable for legally selling a product that works as intended.

To say different takes away from your argument.

Now I do wonder if this legislation removes all liability of gun manufacturers....

....if I fire my gun and it backfires in my face, for instance.

I don't put it past Bush to not think this through.

[j2k4]

I am constitutionally lazy ( in all senses of the phrase), so don't hold your breath.

Hmm.

I recommend a stool-softener.
















I see even more agreement, but cannot comment further as the board's controls are suffering a post-massage spasm due to Rossco's (ad)ministrations.

We are of similar schools as to the quality of our representation, as well as the sources of their various inane compulsions.

More later, if the board settles down.

[clocker]

This is a weird one.

Gun manufacturers should not be liable for legally selling a product that works as intended.

That is not the point.
What other industry enjoys such blanket immunity?
Tobacco...pharmaceuticals...automotive...um,no.
None of those products are designed/marketed to kill yet they stand naked and vulnerable on the plain of judicial redress while the manufacturers of guns- which are specifically intended to injure- just got a "get out of jail free" card compliments of the Republicans.
And this follows the lapse of the ban on military assault weapons...another Bush administration fiat and triumph of money over common sense.

How can conservative Republicans whine about the folly of "expanding" rights for gays and women while simultaneously doing that very thing for their industrial cronies?

[j2k4]

That is not the point.
What other industry enjoys such blanket immunity?
Tobacco...pharmaceuticals...automotive...um,no.
None of those products are designed/marketed to kill yet they stand naked and vulnerable on the plain of judicial redress while the manufacturers of guns- which are specifically intended to injure- just got a "get out of jail free" card compliments of the Republicans.
And this follows the lapse of the ban on military assault weapons...another Bush administration fiat and triumph of money over common sense.

How can conservative Republicans whine about the folly of "expanding" rights for gays and women while simultaneously doing that very thing for their industrial cronies?

I find it odd that personal responsibility is given a pass on this plain you speak of.

Gun manufacturers in court if their products are deliberately used to injure another person?

Okay.

Auto manufacturers in court if someone injures (runs over?) another person?

No.

Drug manufacturers in court in case of an overdose?

No.

Tobacco growers in court if someone dies from lung cancer?

Yes, but only if the state and big tobacco can scratch each other's backs in the bargain.

You analogy is flawed.

[vidcc]

I think the gun shield law is a bad example of government interference where it isn't really justified. There is also a bill called the "hamburger bill" (or some similar sounding name) to shield fast food companies from being sued by obese people who lack self control when it comes to shovelling excessive amounts of food down their throats, even if the fast food in question isn't "healthy". Does the fact that there are "silly" lawsuits mean that certain companies or special interests should be granted "special protection" by way of legislation?
lawsuits are a by-product of a free market economy are they not?
Perhaps if the gun lobby wanted protection they should be more willing to work for sensible control of who should be allowed to have guns and what type of gun is suitable for their needs.

[Busyman]

That is not the point.
What other industry enjoys such blanket immunity?
Tobacco...pharmaceuticals...automotive...um,no.
None of those products are designed/marketed to kill yet they stand naked and vulnerable on the plain of judicial redress while the manufacturers of guns- which are specifically intended to injure- just got a "get out of jail free" card compliments of the Republicans.
And this follows the lapse of the ban on military assault weapons...another Bush administration fiat and triumph of money over common sense.

How can conservative Republicans whine about the folly of "expanding" rights for gays and women while simultaneously doing that very thing for their industrial cronies?
Again, if this legislation stops all lawsuits then I agree with you. If it stops the frivolous ones like "he shot my son with a Smith & Wesson. Smith & Wesson's liable" then I'm all for it...as long as there wasn't a gun malfunction.

Pick your battles carefully.

[j2k4]

lawsuits are a by-product of a free market economy are they not?
I have nothing against lawsuits; let the plaintiff go good for the defense's legal costs, and you've got something that'll work.

Let an attorney put his money where his mouth is, for once.

What they currently do, throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, only enriches them, doesn't do a thing for the plaintiff, and perverts the system.

'Nuff said.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

[Busyman]

I think the gun shield law is a bad example of government interference where it isn't really justified. There is also a bill called the "hamburger bill" (or some similar sounding name) to shield fast food companies from being sued by obese people who lack self control when it comes to shovelling excessive amounts of food down their throats, even if the fast food in question isn't "healthy". Does the fact that there are "silly" lawsuits mean that certain companies or special interests should be granted "special protection" by way of legislation?
lawsuits are a by-product of a free market economy are they not?
Perhaps if the gun lobby wanted protection they should be more willing to work for sensible control of who should be allowed to have guns and what type of gun is suitable for their needs.
This is what makes me angry. It's "Twisted Logic: Liberal Edition". If you don't like guns. Fine. Push for more gun control or banning. This frivolous lawsuit shit is fucking the system up and it's about time real frivolous ones be thrown the fuck out if identified as such.

Got fat from eatin' Mcdonald's food?

:01: :angry: STFU!!!! and GTFO!!! :angry: :01:

Don't try to sue the restaurant that YOU chose to eat at. New update: Eating two super-sized meals in one sitting is not good for you. Add to that fact you sit on your ass unless it's to run, excuse me, walk your ass to McDonalds.
McDonald's didn't put a gun to your head and MAKE you eat their food.

[vidcc]

I have nothing against lawsuits; let the plaintiff go good for the defense's legal costs, and you've got something that'll work.
With the proviso that it is taken on a fair bases, large companies shouldn't be able to get away with something because a plaintiff with a reasonable case is too scared of losing everything going up against the huge legal might. Perhaps a pre-trial test. If a judge thinks the case is reasonable enough then an immunity could be issued, if not then it's up to the plaintiff to decide the risk.

Let an attorney put his money where his mouth is, for once.

What they currently do, throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, only enriches them, doesn't do a thing for the plaintiff, and perverts the system.

'Nuff said.

Don't get me started on lawyers.

That sounds similar to the proposal Kerry/Edwards made...make the lawyers reponsible, which i recall you "poo pood" :rolleyes:

Edit: but then if guns and fastfood get protected...why not lawyers? being you are against "special treatment"

[Busyman]

That sounds similar to the proposal Kerry/Edwards made...make the lawyers reponsible, which i recall you "poo pood" :rolleyes:
Howz about when it's clearly frivolous, throw that shit out? :dry:

[vidcc]

Howz about when it's clearly frivolous, throw that shit out? :dry:

What are you getting at that wouldn't be covered by holding lawyers accountable for bringing frivolous suits?

[clocker]

I find it odd that personal responsibility is given a pass on this plain you speak of.

Gun manufacturers in court if their products are deliberately used to injure another person?

Okay.

Auto manufacturers in court if someone injures (runs over?) another person?

No.

Drug manufacturers in court in case of an overdose?

No.

Tobacco growers in court if someone dies from lung cancer?

Yes, but only if the state and big tobacco can scratch each other's backs in the bargain.

You analogy is flawed.
No, it is not.
Your analysis is.
Cars and drugs are not manufactured to kill, accidents happen with both but neither is intentionally designed to be lethal.
Futhermore, drug companies, tobacco companies and car makers have all lost huge lawsuits for design malfunctions or intentional misleading of the public (tobacco) yet gun makers now have immunity for the very same thing.
The firearms industry has a long and well documented history of evading the weak and ineffectual gun control laws that somehow managed to survive their lobbying efforts, now they needn't even bother...can't be touched no matter what.

Thanks to Dubya I'm placing my order for an Apache attack helicopter tomorrow.
Personal responsibility is so much easier to exert when one has firepower to bring to the field.

[vidcc]

I'm sure they can still be sued if their gun malfunctions due to manufacture defects etc.
As far as I can tell the shield was so they can't be sued if some nut goes on a killing spree.I'm not sure if it covers gun dealers that sell guns to unqualified purchasers.

Still I can't see why this needs to be a "special" protection

[j2k4]

I'm sure they can still be sued if their gun malfunctions due to manufacture defects etc.
As far as I can tell the shield was so they can't be sued if some nut goes on a killing spree.I'm not sure if it covers gun dealers that sell guns to unqualified purchasers.

Still I can't see why this needs to be a "special" protection

:O Vid and I agree?

Will wonders never cease?

Clocker-

Vid gets it and you don't?

Guns are meant to shoot, yes.

Knives are meant to cut.

Wusthof-Trident, Buck and Kershaw should be hauled into court?

Hammers are meant to pound nails.

Stanley should be at risk?

Table legs are meant to hold up tables, but people have been bludgeoned to death with them.

You say guns shoot high-speed projectiles ostensibly meant to kill.

This is true in some cases, but "sporting" rifles and handguns are not marketed to private citizens in order that they may be used to shoot humans, although that regretfully occurs here and there.

The fact is that countless other things can be used as well to take a life, and the wrongful taking of a life by any means (including one's bare hands) can be characterized as nothing more than mis-use of "equipment".

The only thing any of them (including guns) have in common is that they may, and have been, used to take a life.

Guns are not exceptional objects when considered this way.

[vidcc]

:O Vid and I agree?

Will wonders never cease?


So you think this is an unwarranted piece of legislation as well. good on you

[clocker]

Guns are not exceptional objects when considered this way.
Last time I looked, a backround check was not necessary to purchase a table leg.
Or a hammer.

If guns are not "exceptional objects" then why do they enjoy "exceptional protections"?

[Busyman]

Background checks are a legislative and retail issue.

Again clocker, you bring up malfunctions to bolster your argument by citing drugs and cars. It is a flawed argument.

Tell me they can never have a lawsuit for any reason then you can talk.:dry:

[Busyman]

What are you getting at that wouldn't be covered by holding lawyers accountable for bringing frivolous suits?
Why would you hold lawyer's accountable?

I'm don't want to stop or penalize people from bringing lawsuits. If it's frivolous, it's on their dime when it's thrown out anyway.

I know what you're getting at. If lawyers are accountable they'll be less likely to bring bullshit in the court.

I believe there are certain laws that can ascertain what's frivolous and the courts can interpret when this law is to be applied.

For instance, unless McDonald's added an ingredient to purposely make people fat, fat people can fuck off and go cry to the medical field that they have an eating "disorder" that taxpayers can front the bill for.

Too much fried food + no exercise = fat ass

[clocker]

Background checks are a legislative and retail issue.

Again clocker, you bring up malfunctions to bolster your argument by citing drugs and cars. It is a flawed argument.

Tell me they can never have a lawsuit for any reason then you can talk.:dry:
I have never brought up the subject of "malfunctions". j2 brought up the fact that both cars and drugs can kill people also. I simply pointed out the fact that neither of those industries enjoyed the special protections now afforded the makers of guns.
Hell, I would be thrilled if guns "malfunctioned" all the time.

[Busyman]

I have never brought up the subject of "malfunctions". j2 brought up the fact that both cars and drugs can kill people also. I simply pointed out the fact that neither of those industries enjoyed the special protections now afforded the makers of guns.
Hell, I would be thrilled if guns "malfunctioned" all the time.
What special protections could drug and car maker have anyway?

Guns should have that protection. Knife makers don't get sued. Why do gun makers? It's because some people simply don't like guns. That's a shit rationale for a lawsuit to target a particular weapon.

The rationale that guns are made to kill or wound people and animals and knives aren't makes no sense either. It gets a "so what".
They are both legal to own.

In this case, illegal use of a legally sold and owned apparatus is not the fault of the manufacturer.

The reason this special protection is put forth is because it is cut and dry....as it would be with a knife.

[j2k4]

Last time I looked, a backround check was not necessary to purchase a table leg.
Or a hammer.

What would you say if they were?

[clocker]

Guns should have that protection. Knife makers don't get sued. Why do gun makers? It's because some people simply don't like guns. That's a shit rationale for a lawsuit to target a particular weapon.

I think it's an excellent rationale personally.

@j2:
We do not disagree that anything can be used to kill/maim.
Hammers, table legs, etc.,the human mind is infinitely devious.

Tell me...now that you can legally possess an AK-47 again how much furniture have you designed around it?

[Busyman]

I think it's an excellent rationale personally.
Cool then it's an excellent rationale to end the actions of those with your rationale irregardless to using the court to penalize law biding manufacturers instead of lobbying harder to change the law.....

......something that gun manufacturers look like they have almost done successfully. Nice going.

[clocker]

Cool then it's an excellent rationale to end the actions of those with your rationale irregardless to using the court to penalize law biding manufacturers instead of lobbying harder to change the law.....

......something that gun manufacturers look like they have almost done successfully. Nice going.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

[Busyman]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
That's cool. It was mostly English.

[j2k4]

@j2:
We do not disagree that anything can be used to kill/maim.
Hammers, table legs, etc.,the human mind is infinitely devious.

Tell me...now that you can legally possess an AK-47 again how much furniture have you designed around it?

I can use it for a chair by sitting on the "butt" end of the weapon.

[vidcc]

What special protections could drug and car maker have anyway?

I have no idea about the car makers but aren't they trying to cap lawsuit payouts for the medical industry? Already they can take to fed. court where payouts are generally lower.


Guns should have that protection

I agree but not specific legislation for them. Any legislation should be across the board. We hear complaints about "special hate crimes" like racial attacks or attacks on homosexuals saying and assault is an assault and there is no need for special protections (oddly this is mostly from the right which are mostly the ones in favour of gun manufactures protection)

[Busyman]

I agree but not specific legislation for them. Any legislation should be across the board. We hear complaints about "special hate crimes" like racial attacks or attacks on homosexuals saying and assault is an assault and there is no need for special protections (oddly this is mostly from the right which are mostly the ones in favour of gun manufactures protection)
Okayyyyyyyyy.

Gun manufacturers are a different animal and is very specific.

These are cut and dry frivolous lawsuits.

Actually I think anything, barring malfunction (or claims of such) should get this protection. If it starts with gun manufacturers, so be it.