how-to block ads
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
4 edits | reply to amigo_boy
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos...
said by amigo_boy :
There's no coherent strategy behind the goal of attacking telcos civilly. I think everyone can agree that it's a ham-handed way of doing what there isn't political will to do in the natural and constitutional way.
To me, that wreaks as badly as what the President and telcos are accused of doing. It seems to show the same contempt for law.
How did you feel about the Brown/Goldman estates' bringing of a civil suit against O.J. Simpson? Was that a demonstration of contempt for the law?
The fact is that we have civil courts, and people are free to bring suits in them.
If the suits are without merit because there is no showing of potential for damages by the defendants named in the suit, or are being brought by people without standing, they will be summarily discharged.
That is the law.
You talk about the bringing of such suits being a showing of contempt for the law; but the ability for people to bring such suits *is* the law, clearly, so you are wrong.
Period.
It *is* the law.
I agree with you that Congressional hearings would be a better way to handle this inquiry, but...it is what it is. The fact that the Congress doesn't have the stones to stand up to this administration does not mean that individuals who believe they have viable civil cases against the telcos should be peremptorily shut off from bringing such cases before any adjudication as to their validity is undertaken.
You want to prevent people from exercising their right to their day in court, and you speak of *contempt for the law* in the same breath?
To quote something we African Americans say to each other in such situations, 'ni**a please.' | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by huntml  :How did you feel about the Brown/Goldstein estates' bringing of a civil suit against O.J. Simpson? Was that a demonstration of contempt for the law? They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they?
said by huntml :I agree with you that Congressional hearings would be a better way to handle this inquiry, I said "natural" way. Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court.
said by huntml :The fact that the Congress doesn't have the stones to stand up to this administration The big assumption here is that Congress needs to stand up to this administration. The natural reading of current events is that a majority don't believe it rises to that level. And, their actions to amend FISA to provide for what has been happening tends to prove it (in the same way the 13th Amendment and Lend-Lease Act paved over previous "indiscretions.").
Mark | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | OJ was acquitted in criminal court. The Goldmans won a judgment against him in civil court. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by huntml :OJ was acquitted in criminal court. The Goldmans won a judgment against him in civil court. My point was that they sought criminal justice first. They didn't say "aw shucks, this will be too haaaaaard. Let's do civil court" instead.
On a personal note, I wasn't too impressed with the notion of the Goldmans going to civil court to get what they couldn't in criminal court. (I didn't agree with the criminal court judgment. But, it seemed slimy to basically retry him in civil court with lower standards.). It doesn't seem like it's done the Goldmans a lot of good. They seem to be obsessed with revenge. At some point it seems like you have to live with the outcome of the criminal trial and move on.
But, that's just me. As you said, it's their right.
Mark | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
We don't know that the amendments to FISA serve to retroactively legalize what the admin. was doing, because *we don't know what they were doing*. That's why we need to have *some* mechanism to examine what they were doing._At this point, with this bitch-ass Congress, it looks like civil trials against the telcos are the only way to shine light on the matter. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by huntml :We don't know that the amendments to FISA serve to retroactively legalize what the admin. was doing, because *we don't know what they were doing*. You need a girlfriend. There's a presumption that Congress is aware of what "[the administration] were doing" and the amendments reflect Congress's good-faith effort to ameliorate the potential for shortcomings while filling the "dire hole" you admitted needed to be fixed. (Balance of powers, and all.).
You're assuming that the amendments have no relation to what happened. Or, that you can't trust Congress acted appropriately. That's the way representative democracy works. If you don't like it, run for office. That would be more in line with the Constitutional intent than sinking to civil court for monetary damages.
Mark | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they? The matter is quite a different one, as demonstrated by this adminstration's announcement that they *will not allow the DOJ to execute criminal contempt citations* issued by Congress in the Firingate investigation.
This administration, clearly, has no interest in allowing any oversight over its actions, even oversight that is provided for in the Constitution. So yes, let these cases go forward and let us see what comes of them.
What are you afraid of?
Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court. So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you?
Look, like I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, predating even the Constitution, going back into English common law. And like I said, if these people don't have cases or standing, the cases will be tossed. This, too, as I said, is the way the *law works in this country.*
*You* are the one who wants to deny these people their day in court without even a hearing to determine merit or standing, which is completely antithetical to American judispredential history. | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :
You need a girlfriend.
My wife of twenty-one years would *probably* beg to differ with you.
quote:
There's a presumption that Congress is aware of what "[the administration] were doing" and the amendments reflect Congress's good-faith effort to ameliorate the potential for shortcomings while filling the "dire hole" you admitted needed to be fixed. (Balance of powers, and all.)
You're assuming that the amendments have no relation to what happened. Or, that you can't trust Congress acted appropriately. That's the way representative democracy works. If you don't like it, run for office. That would be more in line with the Constitutional intent than sinking to civil court for monetary damages.
Maybe you are right, maybe not. As I mentioned, there are many cases in American law, in environmental law, labor law, etc., where civil actions brought against the executive branch, by citizens with standing and grievance, have led to injunctions forcing the executive to do the right thing, even, no especially, in cases where it flouted legislative will, knowing that the legislature was too fractured/ununified to cite it for contempt.
To me, this looks like just such a case. | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy But, that's just me. As you said, it's their right.
Mark
[/BQUOTE :So, too, in this case. These defendants (some 30+ of them, as I understand it) have brought cases that are on their face in accordance with torte law. So long as they have standing, and can make a prima facie case that it is at least possible they suffered damages, the cases should go forward, whether you like it or not. That, again, is *the law*. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
said by huntml :So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you? C'mon. Saying that trying a criminal case in criminal court before proceeding to civil court (or, worse, skipping criminal court all together) is the natural course one would expect. That doesn't mean one can't seek damages in civil court -- even as a result of criminal actions that can't be proven. The difference is that the Goldmans at least tried to prove criminality. They didn't skip to civil court just because it was "easy."
said by huntml : I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, And I said AT&T customers have a right to sue AT&T for breach of contract. Why hasn't that happened? It seems like a lot of activists seeking to make political points rather than those in a contractual relationship seeking remedy.
The reason that won't happen is because the court would say nobody can prove damages, and that they can "vote with their feet" by walking to the clearly marked exits.
What the pro-civil court crowd wants is to try a criminal case in civil court. They don't care about damages to AT&T customers. They want to assert that *everyone* is a victim (of a broken contract they weren't a party to). They can't rise to the level of criminal court, so they sink to the lower standard of civil court.
Like I said, if the police used civil court to punish drug dealers because criminal court is "too haaaard," the same people screaming about that too.
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
said by huntml :As I mentioned, there are many cases in American law, in environmental law, labor law, etc., where civil actions brought against the executive branch, by citizens Again, you're mixing examples. Filing suit against the executive branch would be the "normal" Constitutional process. Skipping that to impact a business that followed the executive branch in good faith looks like a cheap shot.
Mark | |
|
