|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 11 2018 02:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 02:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
More cities need to do this. Especially coastal areas.
There's no logic in that when those companies supply fossil fuels and NYC burns them to create electricity, or should they sue their own citizens for driving cars? If you want to levy a global warming penalty on huge companies to offset the cost of and fight climate change it would be for the federal government to do I think.
That's like saying it doesn't make sense to sue the tobacco companies. All they did was provide the cigarettes. You smoking them and getting lung cancer was entirely up to you.
The point is that Big Oil has funded a LOT of anti-climate change propaganda that has influenced public opinion to not cut back on fossil fuel spending. Whether this lawsuit holds up in court, I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure they're not being sued for selling oil, but for funding and spreading harmful anti-scientific propaganda.
Given the tenuous link between Big Oil spreading propaganda and NYC needing to spend money because of rising sea levels, I'm not sure the lawsuit has much of a chance, but it's still America, where fastfood companies were successfully sued for selling coffee without sufficiently informing the client it was hot.
|
On January 11 2018 03:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 02:31 oBlade wrote:There's no logic in that when those companies supply fossil fuels and NYC burns them to create electricity, or should they sue their own citizens for driving cars? If you want to levy a global warming penalty on huge companies to offset the cost of and fight climate change it would be for the federal government to do I think. That's like saying it doesn't make sense to sue the tobacco companies. All they did was provide the cigarettes. You smoking them and getting lung cancer was entirely up to you. The point is that Big Oil has funded a LOT of anti-climate change propaganda that has influenced public opinion to not cut back on fossil fuel spending. Whether this lawsuit holds up in court, I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure they're not being sued for selling oil, but for funding and spreading harmful anti-scientific propaganda. Given the tenuous link between Big Oil spreading propaganda and NYC needing to spend money because of rising sea levels, I'm not sure the lawsuit has much of a chance, but it's still America, where fastfood companies were successfully sued for selling coffee without sufficiently informing the client it was hot.
not to get off the point but the coffee in that case was so hot that it burned through the cup and gave the women third degree burns on her private parts. It was not that the coffee was hot, but that it was burn through its own container hot
|
United States44439 Posts
On January 11 2018 03:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 03:32 Acrofales wrote:On January 11 2018 02:31 oBlade wrote:There's no logic in that when those companies supply fossil fuels and NYC burns them to create electricity, or should they sue their own citizens for driving cars? If you want to levy a global warming penalty on huge companies to offset the cost of and fight climate change it would be for the federal government to do I think. That's like saying it doesn't make sense to sue the tobacco companies. All they did was provide the cigarettes. You smoking them and getting lung cancer was entirely up to you. The point is that Big Oil has funded a LOT of anti-climate change propaganda that has influenced public opinion to not cut back on fossil fuel spending. Whether this lawsuit holds up in court, I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure they're not being sued for selling oil, but for funding and spreading harmful anti-scientific propaganda. Given the tenuous link between Big Oil spreading propaganda and NYC needing to spend money because of rising sea levels, I'm not sure the lawsuit has much of a chance, but it's still America, where fastfood companies were successfully sued for selling coffee without sufficiently informing the client it was hot. not to get off the point but the coffee in that case was so hot that it burned through the cup and gave the women third degree burns on her private parts. It was not that the coffee was hot, but that it was burn through its own container hot
And they'd had a bunch of previous burn injuries which hadn't made them change their ways.
The "hurr durr coffee is hot Americans sue everyone" is deliberate corporate propaganda which was pushed during an appeal against the settlement (which McDonald's won). People repeating that shit should be ashamed of their own susceptibility to the precursors of fake news.
The coffee was hot enough to fuse her labia together. The pictures are on the internet if you want to google and see the damage.
|
Also McDonald's had received thousands of complaints about their coffee being to hot. They kept it at 200 F(93.3 c) as company standard. And their defense was people should know coffee is hot when they order it.
That case is so often cited as a stupid lawsuit filed by someone that should have known better, but the real facts show cooperate arrogance and indifference in a way we don't see often today. McDonald's did not give a shit if their coffee burned people.
|
On January 11 2018 03:42 Plansix wrote:
Also McDonald's had received thousands of complaints about their coffee being to hot. They kept it at 200 F(93.3 c) as company standard. And their defense was people should know coffee is hot when they order it.
That case is so often cited as a stupid lawsuit filed by someone that should have known better, but the real facts show cooperate arrogance and indifference in a way we don't see often today. McDonald's did not give a shit if their coffee burned people.
On the other hand, in law schools (and law classes) where its cited as an example for any number of things, like comparative negligence.
Also, IIRC the plaintiff wanted to settle for the cost of medical bills, but McD made a laughably small counter offer. And then eventually the jury awarded her millions.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 11 2018 03:48 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 03:42 Plansix wrote:
Also McDonald's had received thousands of complaints about their coffee being to hot. They kept it at 200 F(93.3 c) as company standard. And their defense was people should know coffee is hot when they order it.
That case is so often cited as a stupid lawsuit filed by someone that should have known better, but the real facts show cooperate arrogance and indifference in a way we don't see often today. McDonald's did not give a shit if their coffee burned people. On the other hand, in law schools (and law classes) where its cited as an example for any number of things, like comparative negligence. Also, IIRC the plaintiff wanted to settle for the cost of medical bills, but McD made a laughably small counter offer. And then eventually the jury awarded her millions.
I can’t remember if this is correct, but I think the jury awarded her the amount of money McDonalds made in one day one off coffee. I know that number was floating around during the case because it went to trial.
|
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Ramseyer_681.pdf
Yeah. No.
That book you're quoting is more than 20 years old, and the US is barely able to compile an actual number.
edit:
That being said, us germans do like disputing parking and speeding tickets. There's nowhere near as many "high profile" cases though, and even less so idiotic ones like vs Red Bull because it doesn't make you grow wings.
|
Heads up if you're an investor.
|
And one lawyer on it (thread)
And they say Trump is uniquely dangerous to the constitutional process. He's practically a bit player in this drama if you ask me.
|
On January 11 2018 05:49 Danglars wrote:
And one lawyer on it (thread)
And they say Trump is uniquely dangerous to the constitutional process. He's practically a bit player in this drama if you ask me. If only Congress could get off its ass and remotely try to do its job so that the Executive doesn't have to do it for them and the judiciary is left trying to stop the entire system from exploding.
|
That's a bad argument because the law surrounding executive orders, particularly those with the potential to implicate due process rights, lacks controlling precedent outside a few cases like the Steel Seizure case.
|
He is sort of making a mountain out of mole hill. It is also a pre-trial injunction preventing enforcement(deportation of those protected by DACA) until the case is heard on the merits. Since deportation normally leads to people not being able to come back to the US, that is sufficient to meet “irreparable harm” required to stay enforcement until the case is heard on the merits.
|
On January 11 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:
He is sort of making a mountain out of mole hill. It is also a pre-trial injunction preventing enforcement(deportation of those protected by DACA) until the case is heard on the merits. Since deportation normally leads to people not being able to come back to the US, that is sufficient to meet “irreparable harm” required to stay enforcement until the case is heard on the merits.
so the usual nonsense and scummery then of republicans trying to deligitimize the judiciary simply because it doesn't give the results they want.
|
On January 11 2018 06:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:
He is sort of making a mountain out of mole hill. It is also a pre-trial injunction preventing enforcement(deportation of those protected by DACA) until the case is heard on the merits. Since deportation normally leads to people not being able to come back to the US, that is sufficient to meet “irreparable harm” required to stay enforcement until the case is heard on the merits. so the usual nonsense and scummery then of republicans trying to deligitimize the judiciary simply because it doesn't give the results they want.
It is just a silly for an attorney to nitpick over the wording over an order in an injunction that was always going to be granted.
|
On January 11 2018 07:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 06:46 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:
He is sort of making a mountain out of mole hill. It is also a pre-trial injunction preventing enforcement(deportation of those protected by DACA) until the case is heard on the merits. Since deportation normally leads to people not being able to come back to the US, that is sufficient to meet “irreparable harm” required to stay enforcement until the case is heard on the merits. so the usual nonsense and scummery then of republicans trying to deligitimize the judiciary simply because it doesn't give the results they want. It is just a silly for an attorney to nitpick over the wording over an order in an injunction that was always going to be granted.
The uhmm... it's not their twitter handle, but the other part of their "name" [I don't do twitter] is pretty telling of the kind of person they are.
|
On January 11 2018 07:45 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2018 07:16 Plansix wrote:On January 11 2018 06:46 zlefin wrote:On January 11 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:
He is sort of making a mountain out of mole hill. It is also a pre-trial injunction preventing enforcement(deportation of those protected by DACA) until the case is heard on the merits. Since deportation normally leads to people not being able to come back to the US, that is sufficient to meet “irreparable harm” required to stay enforcement until the case is heard on the merits. so the usual nonsense and scummery then of republicans trying to deligitimize the judiciary simply because it doesn't give the results they want. It is just a silly for an attorney to nitpick over the wording over an order in an injunction that was always going to be granted. The uhmm... it's not their twitter handle, but the other part of their "name" [I don't do twitter] is pretty telling of the kind of person they are.
A brief jaunt through his feed gives me a pretty good idea of his views on the court system. Not the worst I’ve seen, but clearly thinks that the Judge shouldn’t have granted the DACA members the right to due process before they got deported, or something. And as our resident court clerk(big show off, with all that legal knowledge he went to school to get) said, it’s a pretty bad argument.
And that twitter handle is something I don't want to read to much into.
|
Wish he would stop paying killer cops 6 figure salaries, but this is cool too.
|
Sessions is probably throwing a fit.
Vermont's state Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would legalize recreational marijuana use for adults over the age of 21, removing the last major roadblock on the drug's path to legalization in the state.
Gov. Phil Scott (R) is expected to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. Vermont's Senate had previously passed a version of the bill last summer, but today's vote was required to approve the state House of Representatives's decision to remove a study commission from the bill.
The bill removes the civil penalty and fine for possessing one ounce or less of marijuana, and allows limited growing of marijuana plants.
Scott vetoed a recreational marijuana bill last May, declaring that he wasn't opposed to recreational marijuana but wanted to form a committee to study the issue's implementation in Vermont. That study committee held its first meeting in November, and was set to issue its next report on Jan. 15.
...
thehill.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
