McDonalds made my childern fat! Not!!! - Page 7  

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

Laws. Courts. They're what separate upper level beings from the less intelligent species. Join us!</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways

Rock and Roll baby. Freedom to Eat!

Why is the court system an improper place to enact social change?

[quote]Originally posted by OBJRA10:
<strong>I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways</strong><hr></blockquote>

The government shouldn't be trying to enact social change through taxation. Taxes should only be levied to cover medical costs that the state is burdened with. I'm consistent.

[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
I was just refering to the idea that there are all those unwed and promiscuous women out there copulating like wild rabits and causing their daughters to grow up too young . . . when it's perfectly clear that they should all be in a nuclear family held together by those bastions of stability . . . . family values

at least that is the covert agenda of said "theory"</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sometimes things just happen to work out that way though. It is like when research shows that our brain can handle memorable chunks about 3-5 items long typically and gee English teachers happen to recommend paragraphs that are about that many sentences. It sounds like a conspiracy but it isn't.

And last time I checked when you started puberty had absolutely no effect on how good or moral a person you are in life.

Like I said... feeling a bit touchy....

Nick

[quote]Originally posted by OBJRA10:
<strong>I just think it's amazing that people want to regulate what you eat by taxing you if you eat the wrong thing. And yet, those same people went nuts over their freedom to have legal prostitution under the guise that you should be free to do whatever you want. You can't have it both ways</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you trying to say that if something is taxed we're not free to use it? Or are you trying to say that the plans to regulate and tax prostitution aren't the same as regulating and taxing other institutions? Or is taxing legalized prostitution not infringing on your freedom to f*** while taxing unhealthy food is infringing on your freedom to eat?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Why is the court system an improper place to enact social change?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because the proper place to do it is with the body of government that's closest to the people, the legislature. With the courts you can end up with a ruling that's a result of the whim of a single activist judge. Doesn't matter if it's a "liberal" or "conservative" decision you don't want a single person making important decisions.

[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>

<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>because the proper place to do it is with the body of government that's closest to the people, the legislature.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What if it is the legislature that is the problem?
The legislature doesn't determine the constitutional integrity of legislation, that's the Supreme Court's job.

[quote]<strong>With the courts you can end up with a ruling that's a result of the whim of a single activist judge. Doesn't matter if it's a "liberal" or "conservative" decision you don't want a single person making important decisions.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you have any examples of this happening?

This is an oft-spouted line that I haven't seen fleshed out as a real argument. I can't even see it happening in theory because we, as citizens, have a right to appeal all the way to the highest court. And the argument seems to scoff at the very existence of the court system.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What if it is the legislature that is the problem?
The legislature doesn't determine the constitutional integrity of legislation, that's the Supreme Court's job.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The legislature is (are?) the people. If people can't agree then maybe nothing shoul be done. Often if a small group can't get something pushed through to law then they go to court. When the questions already been answered by the legislature, "no".


[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Do you have any examples of this happening?

This is an oft-spouted line that I haven't seen fleshed out as a real argument. I can't even see it happening in theory because we, as citizens, have a right to appeal all the way to the highest court. And the argument seems to scoff at the very existence of the court system.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It happens all the time. Here's an esxample where the law is ingored and new rights are given to sue an unrelated thrid party.

From <a href="http://overlawyered.com/archives/01/june3.html" target="_blank">OverLawyered.com</a>
[quote]June 29-July 1 -- Ohio auto insurance wreck.
The trial-lawyer-backed 4-3 majority on the Ohio Supreme Court has been doing creative things to expand the scope of coverage of auto insurance in the Buckeye State, with the unfortunate consequence that the price of it is soaring. "The court says that the insurance policies a business buys on its fleet of automobiles covers its employees and their families when driving their personal cars on vacation or on any other personal matter -- from taking the kids to school to driving out for groceries." ("Liability unlimited? This is not your father's car insurance", (editorial), Columbus Dispatch, <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/news/editorials01/june01/721267.html" target="_blank">June 3</a>; "Court extends uninsured coverage beyond belief" (letter to the editor), Columbus Dispatch, <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/news/editorials01/june01/718953.html" target="_blank">June 2</a>)(& letter to the editor, <a href="http://overlawyered.com/letters/01/jul.html#0706d" target="_blank">July 6</a>). Update <a href="http://overlawyered.com/archives/01/nov1.html#1102b" target="_blank">Nov. 2-4</a>: bill to reverse court decision goes into effect after being signed by governor.<hr></blockquote>

Hit <a href="http://www.overlawyered.com[/url" target="_blank">OverLawyered</a> once a week to read up on the insanity that's our legal system.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Why is the court system an improper place to enact social change?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not. When laws are ill-defined, the court system is necessary to help clarify the laws. In the even that a reactionary or extreme judge goes over the line, lawmakers are free to revisit old laws and make specific changes or enact completely new law.

The court system is one way for the people, especially with large class action lawsuits, to give feedback to the government. Joe Nobody can't effectively lobby congress, but he can push for change through the courts.

It's a good balance.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

The court system is one way for the people, especially with large class action lawsuits, to give feedback to the government. Joe Nobody can't effectively lobby congress, but he can push for change through the courts.

It's a good balance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Correction. Large class action lawsuits are ways for lawyers to suck large amounts on cash out of companies and put 10s of thousands of people out of work.

If Joe Nobody can't get anyone to go along with him then there's a reason. He's the only one that cares. I'm sure for good reason too.

Scott:

[quote]<strong>The legislature is (are?) the people. If people can't agree then maybe nothing shoul be done. Often if a small group can't get something pushed through to law then they go to court. When the questions already been answered by the legislature, "no".</strong><hr></blockquote>

So cases like Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas were out-of-line? The legislature's actions went against he Constitution. Maybe you just don't understand how our government is set up. Checks and balances.

The court system is abused sometimes, yes, but so are ALL branches of government: judicial, legislative and executive. To say that the judicial wing of the government is any less valid in enacting social than the other two is just idiotic. What gives the legislative branch ultimate say? Because the Constitution certainly doesn't.

This isn't a pure democracy, if we lived by rule of the majority then maybe you'd have a point. But we don't so you don't.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

Correction. Large class action lawsuits are ways for lawyers to suck large amounts on cash out of companies and put 10s of thousands of people out of work.

If Joe Nobody can't get anyone to go along with him then there's a reason. He's the only one that cares. I'm sure for good reason too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cash for lawyers is a side effect of a good cause or bad.

If Joe Nobody can't get anyone to go along with him, how did he get in a class action suit? Correction: he's not alone.

And if he's alone but right, should he back down? Answer: No.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Scott:



So cases like Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas were out-of-line? The legislature's actions went against he Constitution. Maybe you just don't understand how our government is set up. Checks and balances.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I knew I'd get and asinine response like this. Do you think "Micky D's made my kid fat" comes anywhere near Brown v. Board of Education? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> Do you think the courts are there to rule against every company that liberals think are doing the wrong thing? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

Do you think "Micky D's made my kid fat" comes anywhere near Brown v. Board of Education...Do you think the courts are there to rule against every company that liberals think are doing the wrong thing? </strong><hr></blockquote>

First you can "know" if a case is valid or not, just based off of the title of a Yahoo! news report. That's good. But now you can tell, before a lawsuit is brought, before it's even the gleem in a greedy lawyer's eye, if it can legitimately be brought into a court of law.

You're good. Really good.

If we have you scott, why do we have Congress or Courts? Here's a tip, <a href="http://www.scottknows.com" target="_blank">www.scottknows.com</a> is still available. You could buy it, set up your own Q&A board and help us all bypass the Constitution.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

First you can "know" if a case is valid or not, just based off of the title of a Yahoo! news report. That's good. But now you can tell, before a lawsuit is brought, before it's even the gleem in a greedy lawyer's eye, if it can legitimately be brought into a court of law.

You're good. Really good.

If we have you scott, why do we have Congress or Courts? Here's a tip, <a href="http://www.scottknows.com" target="_blank">www.scottknows.com</a> is still available. You could buy it, set up your own Q&A board and help us all bypass the Constitution.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This made me fall out of my chair.

No you see I respect the Constitution. That's why I don't think the courts should make it up as they go along.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>No you see I respect the Constitution. That's why I don't think the courts should make it up as they go along.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You respect the Constitution, but not the the courts right to interpret it?

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

You respect the Constitution, but not the the courts right to interpret it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Until we rework this whole jury of your peers thing, perhaps we might be better off exercising a little restraint when filing frivolous suits.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>I knew I'd get and asinine response like this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think "I knew that was coming" is a valid retort. You can't substitute that for reason.

[quote]<strong>Do you think "Micky D's made my kid fat" comes anywhere near Brown v. Board of Education?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who said that? Not me.
I addressed your general statement that the court system is not the place to enact social change.

But since you have no valid retort you act as if I said the McD's case was a proper one. Of course I have stated the contrary multiple times, but that's the only road you have since you have no logic to back you. So keep misrepresenting my viewpoint, it's all you've got left.

And you didn't answer the question.

[quote]<strong>No you see I respect the Constitution. That's why I don't think the courts should make it up as they go along.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Platitudes rule!
I can almost hear Rush pounding his desk.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

You respect the Constitution, but not the the courts right to interpret it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea that's just what I said without saying that at all.

The court system is not the proper place to bring about social change in the US. Learn that now and never forget it.
&
No you see I respect the Constitution. That's why I don't think the courts should make it up as they go along.

I can't imagine where he got that idea.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>

Yea that's just what I said without saying that at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I bet you're good at "Whack-a-Mole!" at the county fair.

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>

Won't last. Why? Too much money to be gained.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This was too easy...

<a href="http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=26277&section=BUSINESS&subsection=MO NEY_SMARTS&year=2003&month=2&day=20" target="_blank">McDonald's sued again</a>

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>

This was too easy...

<a href="http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=26277&section=BUSINESS&subsection=MO NEY_SMARTS&year=2003&month=2&day=20" target="_blank">McDonald's sued again</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

What you think a little thing like being wrong would stop them?

Nick

Round II

Here we go again.

Nick

The redundancy rule doesn't go back 4 months.

Start a new thread, this one is old, long, poorly formatted and rightfully dead.