These people are pathetic. I can’t imagine anything worse than losing a child that way, but pursuing the suit was willfully stupid. Sales of weapons and ammunition are constitutionally protected, legal businesses. The sellers don’t kill people. The users of the products kill people. And rarely, at that. Better to go after the theater for obstructing the right of people to protect themselves.
They do have one good point. The dollar amount of damages for attorney fees is as absurd as their nuisance suit was in the first place. If the company actually paid that much – or owes that much – in attorney fees and associated court costs, then they should not be able to afford, or justify, turning around and donating that amount to groups like the NRA. Legal costs and legal costs are legal costs. If that’s not what the legal costs were, get real and only charge the silly plaintiffs the true amount. If those were the legal costs, perhaps that’s a law firm that ought to be ashamed of themselves for giving the industry a bad name.
I have become a fan of Carly, but Fiorina supported an individual mandate in 2013. Not the same mandate. A more sensible mandate. However, it is wrong either way. No matter what the NSA has and allowed Obama to use on Justice Roberts to get a decision that says otherwise, the mandate is unconstitutional.
I’m not convinced this destroys her chances utterly, and it’s going to be hard to do more than modify ObamaCare no matter who wins, but it certainly looks bad. You cannot, by definition, support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America if you support and pursue unconstitutional policies.
The problem may be a corporate background informing her views. The trouble with Republicans is that it’s OK if a corporation does it, the way a Democrat considers it good if the government does it, but then that extends to it being OK if the government does something of benefit to corporation(s). If you see an individual mandate as somehow benefiting business, especially big business, you are more likely to support it as a Republican. No principles need apply.
Perhaps it’s already time to bring back Rick Perry. He has the problem of invoking Jesus, but not to the extent of being a Christian theocrat as some Republicans might be.
When I started seeing “yes means yes” laws mentioned, it seemed funny to me. Why? Because my interpretation of a law of that name was “if someone says yes to sex, it means yes and you can’t go changing your mind later and accusing them of rape.” Because that would be false, whether you are a mattress dragging stunt hound or merely misguided.
Thus I was greatly surprised that it is affirmative consent. That is, absolutely unambiguous yes required each step of the way or it doesn’t count.
None of which changes the problem of his word versus hers, and his word doesn’t really count unless there is concrete evidence. So it really means you need to get consent on paper and/or tape, or to avoid the whole thing entirely, or to stick to partners who are rational humans.
Which would be the case without a law, these days. Especially on college campuses, where the Constitution need not apply.
So you’ve got this manmade global warming thing that not only hasn’t remotely been proven, but arguably the opposite. At minimum, the “evidence” has been subject to fraud or error. It’s more a money game than anything, for “scientists” pursuing it, and a power game for politicians and organizations pursuing it. Powerful motivators, those. Not like truth and accuracy for their own sake, and the sake of a clear conscience.
Now we have someone proposing to use RICO to bludgeon scientists who disagree! Seriously? Are you sure we aren’t living in a Randian dystopia, complete with a State Science Institute run amok?
I had no idea that debtor’s prison still existed! It always struck me as counter-productive. A strategic pound of flesh, as it were, appropriate when a creditor has crossed over from caring about collecting to caring mainly about punishing in retaliation for what may never be collected. Can you imagine if we still had that in all states and for debts of all kinds? It might be worse than the ridiculous overstuffing of prisons via the drug war.
That aside, the big issue here is the lack of representation, which is so blatently wrong it’s amazing it’s taken this long to show up before the Supremes.
On the plus side, each year the deadbeat spends in prison is a year of supporting himself he doesn’t have to do, so in that sense he benefits…
(I really need to add some categories if I am going to post regularly.)