Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
This may be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. "At this point no personal involvement by the defendant" That is beyond stupid. How long had it been since any of these idiots practiced law? And the consumption of ones time, although onerous, isn't the biggest problem - this doesn't even address the fiscal and emotional toll. It ain't cheap. And where in the United States are frivilous or vexatious lawsuits terminated at the pleading stage? Its not like courts give out Summary Judgements like candy. At the time this decision was issued I thought it was really shortsighted and naive, but practical experience has shown that the decision has had drastic consequences that where worse than anything I had imagined.
That is the biggest problem of appointing judges for life. They become completely detached from reality.
|
This decision exposes a president to the potential for lawsuits brought just to embarrass and harrass. I hate to get back at the Clinton thing, but I think the reason many don't view Clinton's perjury so seriously is because the lawsuit was not brought to vindicate the rights of Paula Jones - it was prosecuted to neutralize the Clinton presidency. Had he not been president, there would have been no lawsuit. Had he not been president, and the results of his depositions leaked to Drudge and then reported on the news every evening, he probably would not have been tempted to stray into perjury.
The decision came out my first year in law school while I was taking a class that focused on separation of powers issues. I remember thinking at the time that the decision would produce horrible results, and that its reasoning was laughably naive. I think the decision should be overturned, but I wonder if I'll still think so when the Dems are playing payback with a Republican president less well insulated than W.
