|
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 August 31 2016 04:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! suggested but did not implement. And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all. Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not. And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways.
Fair weather friend of the constitution indeed. We're in a messy area of the intact fragments of the constitution and the way the Supreme Court operates. I need only look at the rulings during Obama's tenure to see how perverted the rationale has become on big cases. They make laws and choose to include various penumbras of justification to make it all look prettier and fool the blind that this is interpretation and not invention. Radical courts demand this kind of consideration. It stands that appointments only join the bench with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is the current form of not consenting. Sorry, I'm all out of rewind buttons to before Reid & Pelosi abused every rule to get the ACA through, and Reid with Obama appointments. You'll have to sit and stew if you want to make moral stands at position A and say how position B was clearly not a moral issue, they had the power to do it and did. Welcome to the operation of the Senate: they have the power to delay a vote until a different party gains power or the leader changes identity or opinion.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:29 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! suggested but did not implement. And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all. Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not. And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways. Fair weather friend of the constitution indeed. We're in a messy area of the intact fragments of the constitution and the way the Supreme Court operates. I need only look at the rulings during Obama's tenure to see how perverted the rationale has become on big cases. They make laws and choose to include various penumbras of justification to make it all look prettier and fool the blind that this is interpretation and not invention. Radical courts demand this kind of consideration. It stands that appointments only join the bench with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is the current form of not consenting. Sorry, I'm all out of rewind buttons to before Reid & Pelosi abused every rule to get the ACA through, and Reid with Obama appointments. You'll have to sit and stew if you want to make moral stands at position A and say how position B was clearly not a moral issue, they had the power to do it and did. Welcome to the operation of the Senate: they have the power to delay a vote until a different party gains power or the leader changes identity or opinion.
Out of curiousity, do you think the constitution should be amended?
|
On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually.
So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here.
|
On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here.
I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side.
|
On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here.
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here.
There is an awful lot of room for interpretation and subjectivity in the press and I think journalists should get the benefit of the doubt most of the time because any other system is very bad for the freedom of the press. Hell, Trump spent years accusing Barry Soetoro of stealing the Presidency, treason and being an enemy of the American people and never once had to defend those claims in a court room. Clean hands, maybe not. But clean enough that chopping off their hands would be overkill.
|
Defamation, libel and slander all have clear definitions law. If Trump can't prove his case in court, he shouldn't be using the court system to bankrupt publications that say harsh things about him.
|
On August 31 2016 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:On August 31 2016 04:12 RvB wrote:
Doesn't the one who loses the lawsuit have to pay all costs though? Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here. I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side.
On August 31 2016 04:48 Nevuk wrote:
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual.
Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs?
|
On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement.
Hi! I come from a universe where conservatives were in favor of things like the English rule as a way to stop frivolous lawsuits from overtaking our lives, and powerful oligopolies/utilities were unable to use lawsuits as cudgels against smaller firms that threaten their dominance.
Your universe is weird. It seemed a lot like mine just a few years ago. Strange how fast things change. + Show Spoiler + In my universe, (generic Republican #3) is coasting to an easy November victory.
|
So another question. Who would get brought to court the journalist or the news company?
|
On August 31 2016 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here. I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side. Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:48 Nevuk wrote:
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual. Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs?
Is that really Trump's point? I thought his point was just "fuck everyone that hurts my brand"
Him revealing flaws in the system seems to be an unintended consequence.
My personal issue is that he's using financial might as a literal weapon in order to impede the first amendment rights of others.
|
On August 31 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! Partizanship would be rejoicing that Hillary gets to pick, surely? I'm not worried that my side is going to lose, quite the opposite, they're probably going to get a more liberal judge than they could have gotten with the election looming over our heads. I just don't think the founders intended an even numbered court for a year because people read the that it's the President's job to nominate and think that somehow means whoever the next President is. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced this would even be happening had Hillary won in 08 and 12, Obama seems to generate a special effort to refuse to follow the normal forms from the opposition. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. They have the right to refuse to accept a nominee but they're not even holding hearings. There is no constitutional grounds for it.
What the founders intended is not a Supreme Court that acts in this way, and until constitutional amendment, Congress should act with this knowledge in mind. This is Democrats wanting it both ways, plain and simple. When they're in power, they'll use every rule in the book to get their way. When they're out of power, they'll claim Republicans have no right to do the same. It's been repeated ad infinitum. Surely the Democrats will respect philibuster, nah. Bills for raising revenue should originate in the house? Haha, you must be joking we have ways around that! Harry Reid refuses to bring a bill or amendment to the floor? ...forget about it ever happening. The President shall nominate by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate? OH MY GOD it means an up or down vote on this timeframe because the president is a Democrat and his sought justice is a liberal. Did Biden first want it to be done for this reason? Ignore it, remember we set precedents and we expect Republicans-only to abide by them. The same partisan stand on principal when it suits you and hope the GOP just dances to your tune.
|
On August 31 2016 04:55 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
gonna need someone to put up a source now
important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here. I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side. On August 31 2016 04:48 Nevuk wrote:
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual. Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs? Is that really Trump's point? I thought his point was just "fuck everyone that hurts my brand" Him revealing flaws in the system seems to be an unintended consequence. My personal issue is that he's using financial might as a literal weapon in order to impede the first amendment rights of others.
Yes, that is his point, and he's been very vocal about it. However, I have no doubt that he also enjoys dragging dipshit journalists who defame him into the meatgrinder that is the civil court system.
|
On August 31 2016 04:54 RvB wrote:
So another question. Who would get brought to court the journalist or the news company?
Both.
|
im ready to end the worship of the founders intentions (not gonna even get into the issue of projection) and get some conversations going on a constitutional convention to stop all the worship
|
On August 31 2016 04:54 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote:
Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. The defense still has to pay a lawyer to sort required paperwork and prepare a defense. Even if the case doesn't send a minute in court it still costs money. If Trump's claim is frivolous or dismissed early in the proceedings for being insufficient, then the Court will likely order Trump to pay the Defendant's attorneys fees and costs. Like I mentioned earlier, if the case goes beyond that phase and into a significant discovery phase, then that means that Trump's claim has merit and that the Defendant probably said something that he shouldn't have, regardless of whether Trump can prove sufficient malice in the making of the statement. Hi! I come from a universe where conservatives were in favor of things like the English rule as a way to stop frivolous lawsuits from overtaking our lives, and powerful oligopolies/utilities were unable to use lawsuits as cudgels against smaller firms that threaten their dominance. Your universe is weird. It seemed a lot like mine just a few years ago. Strange how fast things change. + Show Spoiler + In my universe, (generic Republican #3) is coasting to an easy November victory.
Greetings! I'm pretty sure that I've met your species before. You come from a universe full of denizens prone to making horrifically inaccurate and inept assumptions about others.
|
On August 31 2016 04:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:42 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:29 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! suggested but did not implement. And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all. Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not. And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways. Fair weather friend of the constitution indeed. We're in a messy area of the intact fragments of the constitution and the way the Supreme Court operates. I need only look at the rulings during Obama's tenure to see how perverted the rationale has become on big cases. They make laws and choose to include various penumbras of justification to make it all look prettier and fool the blind that this is interpretation and not invention. Radical courts demand this kind of consideration. It stands that appointments only join the bench with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is the current form of not consenting. Sorry, I'm all out of rewind buttons to before Reid & Pelosi abused every rule to get the ACA through, and Reid with Obama appointments. You'll have to sit and stew if you want to make moral stands at position A and say how position B was clearly not a moral issue, they had the power to do it and did. Welcome to the operation of the Senate: they have the power to delay a vote until a different party gains power or the leader changes identity or opinion. Out of curiousity, do you think the constitution should be amended?
I'm widely supportive of term limits for justices made by constitutional amendment. It's one important step towards reigning in the abuse of power as occurs now with a look towards rights of the individual and the several states.
|
On August 31 2016 04:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On August 31 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yes, they always pay the costs. Depending upon the claims and laws at issue, the loser may have to pay the attorney fees, too. On August 31 2016 04:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Rarely in the US. It is the exception by a long shot. gonna need someone to put up a source now important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here. I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side. Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:48 Nevuk wrote:
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual. Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs? Objection your honor, Strawman.
My statement was very simple. try reading it.
|
United States42685 Posts
On August 31 2016 04:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! Partizanship would be rejoicing that Hillary gets to pick, surely? I'm not worried that my side is going to lose, quite the opposite, they're probably going to get a more liberal judge than they could have gotten with the election looming over our heads. I just don't think the founders intended an even numbered court for a year because people read the that it's the President's job to nominate and think that somehow means whoever the next President is. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced this would even be happening had Hillary won in 08 and 12, Obama seems to generate a special effort to refuse to follow the normal forms from the opposition. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. They have the right to refuse to accept a nominee but they're not even holding hearings. There is no constitutional grounds for it. What the founders intended is not a Supreme Court that acts in this way, and until constitutional amendment, Congress should act with this knowledge in mind. This is Democrats wanting it both ways, plain and simple. When they're in power, they'll use every rule in the book to get their way. When they're out of power, they'll claim Republicans have no right to do the same. It's been repeated ad infinitum. Surely the Democrats will respect philibuster, nah. Bills for raising revenue should originate in the house? Haha, you must be joking we have ways around that! Harry Reid refuses to bring a bill or amendment to the floor? ...forget about it ever happening. The President shall nominate by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate? OH MY GOD it means an up or down vote on this timeframe because the president is a Democrat and his sought justice is a liberal. Did Biden first want it to be done for this reason? Ignore it, remember we set precedents and we expect Republicans-only to abide by them. The same partisan stand on principal when it suits you and hope the GOP just dances to your tune.
Just so we're clear.
You believe that the Supreme Court, which are the supreme constitutional authority on the constitution as appointed by the constitution, are acting in an unconstitutional way?
I don't really understand that opinion at all. Like if the Supreme Court, the final constitutional safeguard of the constitution itself, is working against the constitution, isn't that the entire ball game? Isn't that game over, grab your guns, form your militias and start again time?
|
On August 31 2016 05:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:42 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:29 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! suggested but did not implement. And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all. Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not. And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways. Fair weather friend of the constitution indeed. We're in a messy area of the intact fragments of the constitution and the way the Supreme Court operates. I need only look at the rulings during Obama's tenure to see how perverted the rationale has become on big cases. They make laws and choose to include various penumbras of justification to make it all look prettier and fool the blind that this is interpretation and not invention. Radical courts demand this kind of consideration. It stands that appointments only join the bench with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is the current form of not consenting. Sorry, I'm all out of rewind buttons to before Reid & Pelosi abused every rule to get the ACA through, and Reid with Obama appointments. You'll have to sit and stew if you want to make moral stands at position A and say how position B was clearly not a moral issue, they had the power to do it and did. Welcome to the operation of the Senate: they have the power to delay a vote until a different party gains power or the leader changes identity or opinion. Out of curiousity, do you think the constitution should be amended? I'm widely supportive of term limits for justices made by constitutional amendment. It's one important step towards reigning in the abuse of power as occurs now with a look towards rights of the individual and the several states.
Do you know why the appointment is for life?
So that once the Judge is in place he is beholden to no one and make objective calls based on his interpretation of the constitution.
Your idea would undermine the very foundation of the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
