Still Hating America.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If the sinks appeared identical this would not apply --

but some handicapped-accessible sinks I've seen have faucets that can be turned on and off by means of longish slender handles that can easily be moved right or left -- as opposed to the standard twist in/out model.

S_A_M

ADA Title III I believe. Handles should be of a flipper type. Not ones that you have to twist to turn on and off. That way, if you don't have hands with the ability to grip, you could still turn the water on or off (or open the door) by simply pushing down on the handle.

As for the two sinks, Hank did you look underneath the counter? If they looked identical on top, perhaps the one that was handicap assessible allowed a person in a wheelchair to move up to the sink and not encounter any obstructions underneath (pipes, etc.) Just a guess.


aV

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At the time of the trial, we wondered whether Biskupic truly believed he had a strong case, which would cause one to question his competence, or whether he knew that there really wasn’t a case but succumbed to Republican political pressure.[/list]

Why did the judge let this one get to a jury, incompetent though they may be? The guy is a career state/local court judge: Randa (Bush I appointee, but clearly not one of the political types).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by andViolins
ADA Title III I believe. Handles should be of a flipper type. Not ones that you have to twist to turn on and off. That way, if you don't have hands with the ability to grip, you could still turn the water on or off (or open the door) by simply pushing down on the handle.

As for the two sinks, Hank did you look underneath the counter? If they looked identical on top, perhaps the one that was handicap assessible allowed a person in a wheelchair to move up to the sink and not encounter any obstructions underneath (pipes, etc.) Just a guess.


aV

I figured it was area under the counter too, so I checked that out- it was the same. I should have tried the handles. Next time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

So, if you're the Duke lacrosse players, do you sue Nifong?

I can't see the upside. He's a prosecutor--how much money does he have?

And, to defend the case properly, he's going to be able to trot out the evidence of all the nasty stuff that did go on at the house. While no rape probably occured, it's not as if the strippers came to the house to find a bunch of guys playing Pinochle and sipping cranberry juice.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why did the judge let this one get to a jury, incompetent though they may be? The guy is a career state/local court judge: Randa (Bush I appointee, but clearly not one of the political types).

Good question. Dunno.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good question. Dunno.

Doesn't really matter. I think it goes back to Hank's point yesterday or the day before: As definitive a ruling as teh court of appeals gave by ordering release immediately (and I'm quite sure they had that order prepared before oral argument, which was the gov't's last chance to make its case), that doesn't mean that up until then everything was necessarily unreasonable. Look at all the habeas cases where a guy is convicted, affirmed, well into his sentence and then someone comes along to show there was some flaw in the trial. In retrospect one asks "how could this possibly happen". Most of the time though the answer is that either people made mistakes or that reasonable minds can differ.

I agree from the articles this sounded like an odd case to bring. But that's often said: about Libby, about Martha Stewart, about Clinton's impeachment. Our judicial system seems to do a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. To say we can't rely on it because there's a whiff of possible political motivation strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, if you're the Duke lacrosse players, do you sue Nifong?

I can't see the upside. He's a prosecutor--how much money does he have?

And, to defend the case properly, he's going to be able to trot out the evidence of all the nasty stuff that did go on at the house. While no rape probably occured, it's not as if the strippers came to the house to find a bunch of guys playing Pinochle and sipping cranberry juice.

Would he be personally liable anyway? I am not up on my law of malicious prosecution.

But I think I am with you, it is probably not worth it.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, if you're the Duke lacrosse players, do you sue Nifong?

I can't see the upside. He's a prosecutor--how much money does he have?

And, to defend the case properly, he's going to be able to trot out the evidence of all the nasty stuff that did go on at the house. While no rape probably occured, it's not as if the strippers came to the house to find a bunch of guys playing Pinochle and sipping cranberry juice.

Wouldn't that same information come out if the players sued the City?

aV

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by andViolins
Wouldn't that same information come out if the players sued the City?

aV

I assume. Let me put it this way: why sue anyone? Sure, if you sue teh city/county, then there's some money to be had. But it seems to me having the NC special prosecutor proclaim you innocent of the charges is probably enough.

On the other hand, if you can get a quick settlement for your attorneys' fees, then it might be worth it.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I assume. Let me put it this way: why sue anyone? Sure, if you sue teh city/county, then there's some money to be had. But it seems to me having the NC special prosecutor proclaim you innocent of the charges is probably enough.

On the other hand, if you can get a quick settlement for your attorneys' fees, then it might be worth it.

A figure (that I have heard reported) of $1 million in legal fees for each of the three players is a mighty big incentive to file suit.

aV

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I hope you realize that you're getting to the point where you will defend anything the Dems do. Fucking A.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by andViolins
A figure (that I have heard reported) of $1 million in legal fees for each of the three players is a mighty big incentive to file suit.

aV

Sure, but the city will point to his being a "rogue" prosecutor and the ethics charges will bear them out. So it's really only Nifong who's going to be on the hook.

But let's assume the relevant pockets are deep enough. Even for damages of $1m, would you rather have the last statement be from teh NC AG that you are innocent, or the evidence at trial showing that you stood in a circle around a stripper, while drunk, with a bunch of guys using epithets and aa broomstick to taunt a stripper?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but the city will point to his being a "rogue" prosecutor and the ethics charges will bear them out. So it's really only Nifong who's going to be on the hook.

But let's assume the relevant pockets are deep enough. Even for damages of $1m, would you rather have the last statement be from teh NC AG that you are innocent, or the evidence at trial showing that you stood in a circle around a stripper, while drunk, with a bunch of guys using epithets and aa broomstick to taunt a stripper?

do we answer this using a reasonable man standard, or can I take this from the standpoint of a guy with Shape Shifter's problems?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't see what standard one could use to assess a wrongful firing. Or what the remedy is. It's one thing to can a civil servant for race, politics, whatever--they can be reinstated. But anyone who serves at the pleasure of the President, serves at the pleasure of the president.

The only recourse is political. But the recourse seems even more political than the decision--right now there are primarily Democratic senators basically saying the president should not be able to terminate someone whom he appointed.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me, because the investigation is being led by senators. But if anyone has come out as most egregiously acting improperly it's probably Domenici, who was actively interfering (or seemingly so) in an ongoing investigation. Even taken at its worst, Bush fired prosecutors for failing to bring what he thought were meritorious cases.

Okay. That makes sense.

But to move on the point raised by Hank's next post, what difference is there substantively between investigating the Clinton WH for a possible cover-up w/r/t Travelgate (which I thought was sleazy but not exactly high crimes and misdemeanors) and the current WH being dishonest about being able to produce emails and possibly covering up involvement in the firings by Rove and Gonzales (which, again, I find to be sleazy but not exactly high crimes and misdemeanors)?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay. That makes sense.

But to move on the point raised by Hank's next post, what difference is there substantively between investigating the Clinton WH for a possible cover-up w/r/t Travelgate (which I thought was sleazy but not exactly high crimes and misdemeanors) and the current WH being dishonest about being able to produce emails and possibly covering up involvement in the firings by Rove and Gonzales (which, again, I find to be sleazy but not exactly high crimes and misdemeanors)?

I'm not sure there is one. That said, is the travel office usually staffed by civil servants? Because there is a difference between canning civil service folks for political reasons and canning political appointees for political reasons.