Politics: J'accuse!

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In Iraq? I don't care, it's there country. If we could get a shiek or whatever to bless our involvement and issue a fatwa to support us, I'd take it.

I take it you are not so thrilled with Sistani's support? Is he still around? I haven't heard much about him since Sadr started the Thugs' Rebellion.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hell, once juries learn about this stuff, they may start quadrupling the punitive awards.

Stop editing your posts --- I can't keep up.

This is a fascinating point. One thing keeping puni awards reasonable is the thought it's an unjustified windfall --- keeps the numbers down. If the money goes to the state's general fund, the awards will get bigger and bigger. Ooops. Well, that's a perverse incentive for me to support this policy --- richer law firms, richer state, and the only person who gets hurt is the rare individual who's entitled to a GINORMOUS punitive damages award and now gets only a fraction. Hmmm, maybe I'm getting tired of lobbying for future tort victims, and start looking out for Number One.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your hypo is assuming that there are no compensatories which would make the case worth litigating.

No, my hypo is assuming --- correctly, I might add --- that the proof of a punitive damages case does not overlap 100% with the proof of the liability case, and its costs may be accounted for separately to some degree. The $100K expert was for a damages model based on all of the discovery into the defendant's net worth, profits from the wrongful conduct, past occasions of misconduct showing oppression or malice that would be inadmissible in the absence of a punitives claim, etc. The damages model of the plaintiff's injury and damages would be put on by an expert paid out of the client's compensatory award. God knows how they'd handle it if the case settled before trial but after the punitives expert got paid and deposed. Yikes.

It also ignores the California law which lets the plaintiff collect fees, etc. from the defendant.

That fee statute applies only where you can convince the judge that you generated a public benefit, not merely vindicated your client's individual rights. Awards under that statute are comparatively rare, and certainly wouldn't apply in a PI or standard business tort case like consumer fraud (unless you get some kind of injunction, I guess). Since your policy would ring the state's cash machine every time a punitive verdict is rendered, maybe fee-shifting would occur in every case because, hey, free money! If so, you're an Evil Genius. Fee-shifting because the state gets a share of the award! It's delicious! {Rubbing hands and slobbering.}

ETA: "Cash machine"? I think I meant "cash register," but now I can't remember.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm exhausted now, but at least we're no longer discussing taxation of DC residents and the dormant commerce clause.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are there ANY leaders in Iraq that are widely respected? It seems to me that there is a complete void there (and Chalabi is certainly not going to fill it) and what is missing is a representative of the Iraqis to stand up and say we support the US (if, indeed, they actually do).

Absolutely, if to "widely respected" you add "within their ehtnic group." Iraq is very much a tribal/ethnic -based society.

The closest candidate may be Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who (because Shi'ites are 60%+ of the Iraqi population) is probably respected by 50% + of Iraqis. There are Kurdish leaders who can bring the Kurds along.

The Sunnis are more fragmented. Adnan Pachachi (on the Governing Council) has some stature, in part because he was Prime Minister (?) before the Baathist revolution, and stayed in Iraq, suriving in quiet retirement all those years.

A number of representive Iraqis have stood up and said what you want, but they still need to (and do) express some independence, guard their territory and pieces of the pie from the other ethnic groups, etc., etc., etc.

S_A_M

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm exhausted now, but at least we're no longer discussing taxation of DC residents and the dormant commerce clause.

And here I was thinking "destroying the village to save it" had been generally discredited as a mission objective.

jk. Not being a litigator it was actually innerestin' to hear (er, read) the issues debated this way...

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I take it you are not so thrilled with Sistani's support? Is he still around? I haven't heard much about him since Sadr started the Thugs' Rebellion.

He's been keeping pretty quiet -- which has been helpful in itself in the past -- but his people have been warning Sadr's boys recently not to risk the holy places, etc.

He has never been a fan of the young upstart, but is not a huge fan of the U.S. either, PLUS has believed all his life in "quietism" i.e. clerics stay out of politics. Also, he can not afford to be seen as the U.S.'s bitch. Still, there is now more open conflict between other Shi'ites and the Sadr militia, and broad popular support for Sadr has waned. Sistani has had something to do with that.

[But Lord, does he hate Israel!]

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
And here I was thinking "destroying the village to save it" had been generally discredited as a mission objective.

jk. Not being a litigator it was actually innerestin' to hear (er, read) the issues debated this way...

I think maybe Atticus wore me down. I was thinking of punitives as found money, and that taxing them would not significantly affect the incentives of the parties seeking them, but now I'm not so sure.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


And can you please deal with the unintended consequences argument of giving these incentives to the state? I'm going to lobby my legislature to introduce my jury instruction bill shortly. What're you gonna do? Challenge it in federal court?

I dealt with that. State legislatures are regularly considering bills to limit or eliminate punis, supported by industry. The only thing keeping them in place is generous contributions from trial lawyers. I don't see that balance being greatly altered: "let's make punis easier to get to enrich our state revenues." I'm sure that's a way to attract business.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I dealt with that. State legislatures are regularly considering bills to limit or eliminate punis, supported by industry. The only thing keeping them in place is generous contributions from trial lawyers. I don't see that balance being greatly altered: "let's make punis easier to get to enrich our state revenues." I'm sure that's a way to attract business.

Could you respond to the "75% tax destroys all incentive" part? Gracias.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
He has never been a fan of the young upstart, but is not a huge fan of the U.S. either, PLUS has believed all his life in "quietism" i.e. clerics stay out of politics. Also, he can not afford to be seen as the U.S.'s bitch.

But getting back to Club's original question, it seems to me that anyone openly supporting the US will be seen as our bitch, and so nobody can really afford to do so. Even Chalabi is trying to win some bona fides by cozying up to the Iranians. It seems like this occupation has stumbled frequently enough and for long enough that now all the folks want is an Iraqi face running the place.

Additionally it remains to be seen what the response will be when the transfer of sovereignty on June 30 does not include several ministries of government and other responsibilities naturally thought to be included in the term "sovereignty". I think we'll be in for another round of what some may call ingratitude from opportunistic Iraqi leaders...

edited to...uh, I doubt you really care.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Absolutely, if to "widely respected" you add "within their ehtnic group." Iraq is very much a tribal/ethnic -based society.

The closest candidate may be Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who (because Shi'ites are 60%+ of the Iraqi population) is probably respected by 50% + of Iraqis. There are Kurdish leaders who can bring the Kurds along.

The Sunnis are more fragmented. Adnan Pachachi (on the Governing Council) has some stature, in part because he was Prime Minister (?) before the Baathist revolution, and stayed in Iraq, suriving in quiet retirement all those years.

A number of representive Iraqis have stood up and said what you want, but they still need to (and do) express some independence, guard their territory and pieces of the pie from the other ethnic groups, etc., etc., etc.

S_A_M

I'm aware of Sistani, but his support has been more tacit than I'd hope for. I think we need a symbolic gesture. Big press conference carried on Arab TV would be a good start. It's the least they can fucking do.

[ltl/fb]

A Colorado Bishop, in one of strongest stands yet taken by a U.S. Roman Catholic church leader, says communion should be denied to people who vote for candidates supporting such issues as abortion rights, gay marriage, euthanasia and stem cell research.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

I guess if one candidate is pro-choice and the other supports stem cell research, you just abstain?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Could you respond to the "75% tax destroys all incentive" part? Gracias.

Well, in fairness, they're the ones saying a 40% rate destroys almost all incentive. Why, every day they wonder why they should get out of bed, with the government taking practically all of their money and such. Eventually, though, their manservants cajole them with the promise that they'll be able to keep the other 60%, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Of course, the promise that you can keep 25% will be even less attractive, especially since your costs and attorneys' fees have to come out of that after taxes.

Whether the Laffer curve is a bell curve is anyone's guess. I doubt it; it seems unlikely that the incentives are the same at 5% as at 95%. Your napkin may vary.

ETA: Save yourself a whiff. I understand that the shaded region of the napkin represents government revenues under each average tax rate, not the total incentive of each individual taxpayer. It was a joke.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
A Colorado Bishop, in one of strongest stands yet taken by a U.S. Roman Catholic church leader, says communion should be denied to people who vote for candidates supporting such issues as abortion rights, gay marriage, euthanasia and stem cell research.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

I guess if one candidate is pro-choice and the other supports stem cell research, you just abstain?

How odd that there's nothing in there about the death penalty.