A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Proposing new political language about abortion rights for an increasingly skittish Democratic Party, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that friends and foes on the issue should come together on "common ground" to reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies" and ultimately abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters at the state Capitol, firmly restated her support for Roe v. Wade.

But then she offered warm words to opponents of abortion and said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons teenagers abstained from sexual relations.

The NEW YORK TIMES is set to splash the Hillary speech.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Filartiga was brought under the old Alien Tort Crimes Act - passed way back when, in the First Congress, I think. You could sue an individual, if you could get jurisdiction over them, in the US for crimes that violated some notion of international morality or treaties. This was developed to allow victims to sue pirates. (Humor me - I'm working off of dim law school memories here.)(ETA - Not sure if the ATCA still exists.)

Your dim law school memories are better than mine, apparently, and I have less intervening time as an excuse.

[Adder]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I would be willing to put my hours worked per year up against that guy's.

Although I would like to know how to get the job he describes....

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm a little surprised that there aren't more people itching to talk here about tort reform -- Hello! aside -- I mean, what could be more interesting? -- so perhaps I'll get the ball rolling a little. One of the tough questions is what kinds of cases are the "frivolous lawsuits" that the President keeps talking about. Take this example:

• A man provides a car for his teenage daughter to drive. Through no fault of her own, the daughter is involved in a minor fender bender. No one is hurt and the property damage is less than $2,500. The father could just turn the claim into his insurance company and be done with it. Instead, when he learns that the other driver was in a rental car and that the rental company provided the car to a driver with a suspended license, the father sues the rental car company for the property damage.

Frivolous or not?

The thing that gets me about the tort reform crowd is that their attention is horribly misdirected. The major frivolous costs to society are not in personal injury and med mal, where at least there is an injured person being compensated, even if we feel sometimes excessively.

The big drain is the class action bar. The miniscule injury that gets blown out of proportion due to lawyer with no clients and nothing but a fat contingency on their mind. Not to mention the possibility of punitive (products liability) and treble (antitrust damages). And then there is Milberg...

[Replaced_Texan]

Anyone have more information on this:

• The new movement has urgency: Because of a December court ruling, Johnsson and other attorneys contend, women convicted of indecent exposure [toplessness] could find themselves listed as sex offenders under Megan's Law, alongside rapists and child molesters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...=la-home-local

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anyone have more information on this:

• The new movement has urgency: Because of a December court ruling, Johnsson and other attorneys contend, women convicted of indecent exposure [toplessness] could find themselves listed as sex offenders under Megan's Law, alongside rapists and child molesters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...=la-home-local

Nope. Although I am curious about why this has such urgency for you.....

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Adder
Nope. Although I am curious about why this has such urgency for you.....

All the better to see me, my dear.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anyone have more information on this:

• The new movement has urgency: Because of a December court ruling, Johnsson and other attorneys contend, women convicted of indecent exposure [toplessness] could find themselves listed as sex offenders under Megan's Law, alongside rapists and child molesters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...=la-home-local

you know how a Megan's law guy on a street normally hurts property values? Well this might actually increase them, you know?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub

The last time I posted on politics, I think I posted the precursor to this. Basically, google "abortion" and "Roemer" in the google news section and you'll get the background over the last 6 weeks. Lots of surprising names come up in support of tolerance on the position.

I'm not positive, but I think part of the impetus was Kerry's people saying he was surprised at the number of conflicted D constituents who would be a lot less conflicted if the party's position was a bit less strident on this issue.

And then there is the pro-life D Senate minority leader. Its gonna be interesting to see who comes out as the DNC chair.

Hello

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
All the better to see me, my dear.

Empty promises... the story of my life...

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Because I got yelled at by a Ukrainian a few weeks ago: "Ukraine," not "the Ukraine."

The Soviets tacked "the" in front of Ukraine to linguisticly foster the notion that it was a mere territory or region of the soviet union. Ukraine is the name of the sovereign nation.

This has been bugging me for days, but only just got around to tracking down the post. How could Russians, whose language has no articles, have tacked "the" in front of anything?? Did they deliberately do it in languages other than Russian, but not Russian itself?

Does Ukranian have articles?

There's no "the" there.

That is all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There's no "the" there.

FBOTD.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sounds like that's what actually happened, at least on the record (or whatever the proper term is). This is a non-issue, and NW is grasping here.

Look, the whole "jury service" incident itself isn't a big deal, but lying to Congress (if he did so) is supposed to be a big deal.


It seems hard to believe that Gonzales would have so faulty a memory of the only time he went to Court for Bush, but it was years ago -- and in any event he is undoubtedly smart enough that everything he said was literally true.

I think, however, that "misleading" a Congressional committee who is reviewing your nomination should itself be grounds for defeat as a nominee.

If you think that lies to Congress (or misleading Congress) to protect the President from embarassment are OK so long as they match with the "record" you're endorsing a remarkably low standard of conduct for our public servants. Some Clinton nominees were sunk for allegedly lying to the FBI (Cisneros was one -- though he lied to protect himself from embarassment, not out of loyalty to his "padrone"). Any Bush nominees who mislead Congress or the FBI should suffer the same fate.

Of course, given the track record of this Administration . . . .

S_A_M

P.S. Hear about the new request for another $80B for Afghanistan & Iraq? Looks like Larry Lindsey was right in the ballpark about the cost of the war, just as Shalikashvili was about the numbers of troops which would be required for the aftermath. They were, however, way off of the party line. God Bless the USA.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The last time I posted on politics, I think I posted the precursor to this. Basically, google "abortion" and "Roemer" in the google news section and you'll get the background over the last 6 weeks. Lots of surprising names come up in support of tolerance on the position.

I'm not positive, but I think part of the impetus was Kerry's people saying he was surprised at the number of conflicted D constituents who would be a lot less conflicted if the party's position was a bit less strident on this issue.

And then there is the pro-life D Senate minority leader. Its gonna be interesting to see who comes out as the DNC chair.

Hello

There is certainly a movement in the DEM party away from the absolute pro-choice position, which is a good thing for both the DEMs and the country, but I don't think this will become the party orthodoxy without a fight.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Look, the whole "jury service" incident itself isn't a big deal, but lying to Congress (if he did so) is supposed to be a big deal.


It seems hard to believe that Gonzales would have so faulty a memory of the only time he went to Court for Bush, but it was years ago -- and in any event he is undoubtedly smart enough that everything he said was literally true.

I think, however, that "misleading" a Congressional committee who is reviewing your nomination should itself be grounds for defeat as a nominee.

If you think that lies to Congress (or misleading Congress) to protect the President from embarassment are OK so long as they match with the "record" you're endorsing a remarkably low standard of conduct for our public servants. Some Clinton nominees were sunk for allegedly lying to the FBI (Cisneros was one -- though he lied to protect himself from embarassment, not out of loyalty to his "padrone"). Any Bush nominees who mislead Congress or the FBI should suffer the same fate.

Of course, given the track record of this Administration . . . .

S_A_M

P.S. Hear about the new request for another $80B for Afghanistan & Iraq? Looks like Larry Lindsey was right in the ballpark about the cost of the war, just as Shalikashvili was about the numbers of troops which would be required for the aftermath. They were, however, way off of the party line. God Bless the USA.

Here's what I think happened. They asked him about it. It was ten years ago, so he had to refresh his memory by reading the transcript. The in chambers stuff was not in the transcript and he forgot it happened.