|
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 06:02 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 05:46 farvacola wrote:
There are hundreds of constitutional scholars who literally disagree with everything that Danglars has posted; anecdotally, not a single professor at my law school, a mid tier, unusually conservative establishment, thinks that we're in a "post constitutional society." If they're really conservative and not just unusually conservative given the profession, they'll come around  If they're really religious and not just unusually religious given the profession, they'll come around Do you even realise how the shit you write sounds?
like he's assuming his interpretations of the american political system have some sort of element of sacred truth to them that everybody else is blind to? yea pretty much par for the course for Danglars
|
On August 31 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:55 Nevuk wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You keep mentioning journalist who defame him. You realize Trump's ongoing rant about how the media is dishonest when it comes to him is a blatant lie, right? If the countless bad things they write about him were actually false do we really think that somebody as litigious as Trump wouldn't have sued already?
Fact of the matter is no main stream media outlet is going to lie about him since he gives them so much content as is. It anybody got close, like you said earlier, his chances of winning are small anyways.
This whole threatening lawsuit thing is just another small threat from a small man.
|
United States42689 Posts
On August 31 2016 06:05 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 06:02 Velr wrote:On August 31 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 05:46 farvacola wrote:
There are hundreds of constitutional scholars who literally disagree with everything that Danglars has posted; anecdotally, not a single professor at my law school, a mid tier, unusually conservative establishment, thinks that we're in a "post constitutional society." If they're really conservative and not just unusually conservative given the profession, they'll come around If they're really religious and not just unusually religious given the profession, they'll come around Do you even realise how the shit you write sounds? like he's assuming his interpretations of the american political system have some sort of element of sacred truth to them that everybody else is blind to? yea pretty much par for the course for Danglars
It's ideologically consistent at least. And he's not taken up arms yet. As long as he sits around and waits for everyone else to convert I'm cool with it. It's like the political equivalent of the Amish.
|
On August 31 2016 06:05 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:55 Nevuk wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You keep mentioning journalist who defame him. You realize Trump's ongoing rant about how the media is dishonest when it comes to him is a blatant lie, right? If the countless bad things they write about him were actually false do we really think that somebody as litigious as Trump wouldn't have sued already? Fact of the matter is no main stream media outlet is going to lie about him since he gives them so much content as is. It anybody got close, like you said earlier, his chances of winning are small anyways. This whole threatening lawsuit thing is just another small threat from a small man.
Thats a bit persumtive. Calling someone a racist or a sexist isn't a fact based assertion. Its an opinion based on the actions you perceive to be racist or sexist. When that crosses a line (decided by some court) then its dishonest slander.
Writing countless bad things about him is fair game as long as they don't decided to make commentary on the bad things he does. Then its just them hiding behind the shield of journalism while practicing the same thing as network entertainment.
|
I should have posted this initially. This is the actual O'Brien lawsuit from 2005. Trump got wrecked on the merits at trial and got smacked down on appeal. Trump lied repeatedly under oath during his depositions. The whole lawsuit was because O'Brien wrote the following line:
"In TrumpNation, O’Brien cited those numbers, alongside “three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances” who estimated his wealth was “somewhere between $150 million and $250 million.”
Despite his having included all of this information, including Trump’s denial, Trump accused O’Brien of cherry-picking his information to hurt Trump’s reputation. He sued him for $5 billion in damages."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431575/donald-trump-tim-obrien-courtroom-story
|
On August 31 2016 06:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 06:05 On_Slaught wrote:On August 31 2016 04:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:55 Nevuk wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You keep mentioning journalist who defame him. You realize Trump's ongoing rant about how the media is dishonest when it comes to him is a blatant lie, right? If the countless bad things they write about him were actually false do we really think that somebody as litigious as Trump wouldn't have sued already? Fact of the matter is no main stream media outlet is going to lie about him since he gives them so much content as is. It anybody got close, like you said earlier, his chances of winning are small anyways. This whole threatening lawsuit thing is just another small threat from a small man. Thats a bit persumtive. Calling someone a racist or a sexist isn't a fact based assertion. Its an opinion based on the actions you perceive to be racist or sexist. When that crosses a line (decided by some court) then its dishonest slander. Writing countless bad things about him is fair game as long as they don't decided to make commentary on the bad things he does. Then its just them hiding behind the shield of journalism while practicing the same thing as network entertainment.
Fair enough.
I still maintain that if things were as bad as Trump made them out to be we'd be seeing lawsuits left and right
|
On August 31 2016 05:32 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump: "Judges never let these cases get litigated and go to court but I'm glad I cost him a lot of time and money and my express purpose was to cost him time and money".
xDaunt: "If Trump's case doesn't get to court that means it had no validity and the other side will recoup. But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery). Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
This was not a stellar display of intellectual honesty by xDaunt. But generally, when someone is trying to defend Trump's first-resort lawsuit strategy (including against pageant queens who say bad things), they're not gonna be winning any logic awards. Yes, please keep talking about "intellectual honesty" when you can't even summarize or recite what I've said accurately. But hey, the effort to get it right would probably result in you tearing something. Make sure you stretch before trying. With fear that you call me stupid too, that did sound a whole lot like what you said in a span of a few posts. Care to explain what do you think is the inaccuracy that runs contrary to the meaning of your posts?
Take a look at my previous post.
On August 31 2016 05:32 farvacola wrote:
The notion that everyone in the same or a similar "game" as Trump need be a litigious asshole is not true; otherwise the courts would be hopelessly mired with endless caseloads like those brought on by folks like Trump.
Also, mentioning the high standard imposed on Slander/Defamation/Libel claims via New York Times v. Sullivan without also noting that the bar for establishing frivolous claims, which would be necessary to override most jurisdictions' separate assessment of costs barring victory by a party, is also very difficult to meet is misleading.
In most jurisdictions, dismissal under Rule 12 will result in awards of attorney's fees. For that reason, we don't really have to worry about Trump being able to bury journalists with frivolous lawsuits. What's really at issue here is whether Trump can or should be able to bring suits against people that make false, injurious statements against him even when he's going to lose by virtue of the inability to demonstrate actual malice. Given all other possibilities, I think that he should have that ability, and that it is the least injurious outcome available. The alternatives would be to either open the floodgates to defamation suits or to severely restrict access to the court system.
|
On August 31 2016 06:12 CannonsNCarriers wrote:I should have posted this initially. This is the actual O'Brien lawsuit from 2005. Trump got wrecked on the merits at trial and got smacked down on appeal. Trump lied repeatedly under oath during his depositions. The whole lawsuit was because O'Brien wrote the following line: " In TrumpNation, O’Brien cited those numbers, alongside “three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances” who estimated his wealth was “somewhere between $150 million and $250 million.”Despite his having included all of this information, including Trump’s denial, Trump accused O’Brien of cherry-picking his information to hurt Trump’s reputation. He sued him for $5 billion in damages." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431575/donald-trump-tim-obrien-courtroom-story
Ah, he said Trump was poor. No wonder he got sued. That's even worse than accusing him of small hands.
|
I really question of a rule 12 dismissal is going to be successful. It is hard for the publication to argue that there is no claim based on the facts pre-discovery. The judge will want to see why the story was news worthy and they did not fabricate the claim, all which will have to happen after discovery is finished by both sides. That argument doesn't hold much water since Trump has brought previous claims to trial and appeal.
|
Whether or not Trump ought to be able to pursue claims that he knows will fail because of a missing element is one thing; I'm not personally sure how I feel about it, though I'm inclined to think that I too am ok with Trump being able to litigate in the manner he claimed to. Nevertheless, there's certainly ground on which those familiar with "the game" can stand on when it comes to judging Trump harshly for his approach towards what he considers false and/or injurious statements. There's even dicta in Sullivan among other First Amendment cases that suggests that false and/or injurious statements, absent actual malice, are precisely the sorts of expressions deserving of protection from the courts (whether or not that includes a prohibition of the sort of litigation Trump pursues is anyone's guess).
Edit: I'm inclined to agree with Plansix on Rule 12 dismissals; it's very common for judges to forgo dismissal in favor of waiting for summary judgment when either novel or fact intensive controversies arise. Accordingly, colorable defamation claims are a very hardsell before discovery.
|
On August 31 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:
I really question of a rule 12 dismissal is going to be successful. It is hard for the publication to argue that there is no claim based on the facts pre-discovery. The judge will want to see why the story was news worthy and they did not fabricate the claim, all which will have to happen after discovery is finished by both sides.
Actually, the Courts (first the federal, and now many state courts) have significantly tightened up pleading requirements in recent years. It's a lot easier to get a dismissal under Rule 12 now than it used to be. Notice pleading is effectively dead. If you're filing suit, you better be able to tell a tight, credible story showing why you're entitled to relief, otherwise the Court is going to give you the boot.
|
On August 31 2016 06:25 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 06:12 CannonsNCarriers wrote:I should have posted this initially. This is the actual O'Brien lawsuit from 2005. Trump got wrecked on the merits at trial and got smacked down on appeal. Trump lied repeatedly under oath during his depositions. The whole lawsuit was because O'Brien wrote the following line: " In TrumpNation, O’Brien cited those numbers, alongside “three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances” who estimated his wealth was “somewhere between $150 million and $250 million.”Despite his having included all of this information, including Trump’s denial, Trump accused O’Brien of cherry-picking his information to hurt Trump’s reputation. He sued him for $5 billion in damages." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431575/donald-trump-tim-obrien-courtroom-story Ah, he said Trump was poor. No wonder he got sued. That's even worse than accusing him of small hands.
saying he has only $150 to $250 million in capital then people wouldn't want to do shit like get into large capital sinks such as a casino or golf course. That means that he loses business and money because of it.
|
Trump's lawyers are good enough to get around Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards, particularly when it comes to the filing of claims that do not require much creativity in the complaint. We all know those decisions are aimed at 1983 actions anyhow 
|
On August 31 2016 06:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:
I really question of a rule 12 dismissal is going to be successful. It is hard for the publication to argue that there is no claim based on the facts pre-discovery. The judge will want to see why the story was news worthy and they did not fabricate the claim, all which will have to happen after discovery is finished by both sides. Actually, the Courts (first the federal, and now many state courts) have significantly tightened up pleading requirements in recent years. It's a lot easier to get a dismissal under Rule 12 now than it used to be. Notice pleading is effectively dead. If you're filing suit, you better be able to tell a tight, credible story showing why you're entitled to relief, otherwise the Court is going to give you the boot.
That sounds nice, but I'm still not convinced that Trump is going to get slapped so hard he will have to pay for the Washington posts legal counsel. And I'm pretty sure any attorney he hires can dodge a motion to dismiss. That is the base line for being a passable attorney.
|
On August 31 2016 06:02 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 05:46 farvacola wrote:
There are hundreds of constitutional scholars who literally disagree with everything that Danglars has posted; anecdotally, not a single professor at my law school, a mid tier, unusually conservative establishment, thinks that we're in a "post constitutional society." If they're really conservative and not just unusually conservative given the profession, they'll come around If they're really religious and not just unusually religious given the profession, they'll come around Do you even realise how the shit you write sounds? Going for "religious" was an act of curtosy, thank me later.
The law profession is notably liberal. Conservative can mean simply toward less radical change than the other: Hillary Clinton ran as much more conservative than Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it is relevant if his professors are simply relatively more conservative than others or conservatives relating to the entire spectrum of American political views.
|
On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sotomayor and Kagan were both nominated by Obama during his first term. The 2012 election decided who should be nominating the next Supreme Court justice(s) from January 2013 to January 2017. The American people chose Obama.
|
On August 31 2016 06:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +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. Sotomayor and Kagan were both nominated by Obama during his first term. The 2012 election decided who should be nominating the next Supreme Court justice(s) from January 2013 to January 2017. The American people chose Obama.
Now I wonder if you'll tell me what was the makeup of the senate then and now. And which people elected them.
|
And with that argument, we have found the opposite of statesmanship.
|
On August 31 2016 07:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 06:46 kwizach 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. Sotomayor and Kagan were both nominated by Obama during his first term. The 2012 election decided who should be nominating the next Supreme Court justice(s) from January 2013 to January 2017. The American people chose Obama. Now I wonder if you'll tell me what was the makeup of the senate then and now. And which people elected them.
Does the answer to that somehow magically change the President's job description?
|
The makeup of the senate has no bearing on what he said. They aren't doing their job because they want to gamble on getting a republican in the White House. They would have something to stand on if Scalia had died much closer to the election but keeping a seat open for this long is a disgrace. Especially since Scalia wasn't even cold in the ground before McConnell and his ilk were already grand standing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
