F.C.C.K! »
By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:
(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.
(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.
(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.
(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.
(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:
(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.
(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.
(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.
(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.
(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.
(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.
(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.
Disclaimer:
--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.
--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.
--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.
--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.
Read and Post at your own risk.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Bork should go all the way and hire John Edwards to be his personal-injury lawyer.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
The conservatives are really showing their true stripes these days. The rules that they expect everyone else to live by, somehow don’t apply to them. Victimhood has triumphed over principle, when it became obvious that immediate gain would result from it.
Recent examples of this phenomena include Bork’s lawsuit, the conservative’s movement to pardon Scooter Libby, the outing of Valerie Plame-while claiming to worry about Saddam’s WMD’s, Tom DeLay’s championing of Clinton’s impeachment- yet calling his own legal troubles prosecutorial misconduct, etc etc.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Well, Mike wasn’t kidding:
Bork Suit 06/06/07
Bork’s “Tempting of America” was outstanding and I would prefer to remember him from that time. In later years he had demonstrated a non-libertarian, truly social-conservative side to him (referring to “the criminal class,” for example) and this is just plain sick.
OK, lefties, don’t expect as many references any more to Bork from me — not after this.
I like the Edwards idea. That might charm more than a mere $1 out of a jury.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Of what use is an ideology if you are willing to abandon its principles for the prospect of the almighty dollar? Bork is no better than the guy who sues for whiplash when they’re rear-ended by someone driving 5 miles an hour.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:22 am
DLS The lawsuit only mentions a hematoma on his leg. The lawsuit ignores his head injury, I guess nothing is going on up there. This is just as good as the Washington Republican judge suing the Korean dry cleaners. Now, who is the activists and filing frivolous suits?
June 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Bork could have asked for assistance getting on the dais. What we have here is someone trying to avoid personal responsibility and blame others for one’s own poor judgement!
June 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Kim Ritter:
The “ideology” may still be valuable and what Bork said in the past remains valid even though he’s hypocritical now. In the case of “Tempting of America,” it wasn’t ideology, but true respect for law and rule of law, while the many liberal and few current conservative activists in the legal world are substituting their ideology and plain wishes for law or “legal theory” [sic]. (The word “green” “should” now mean red rather than “outmoded” green, etc.)
Bork is at fault here, not what was written in “The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law.”
Bork Quotes
The Tempting of America -Michael Starkman’s site
The Tempting of America - Daniel Young review
The Tempting of America - National Review
Arguments against originalism fall short every time.
Theories of Constituational Interpretation
The Tempting of Richard Posner - Richard Boston
June 8th, 2007 at 10:58 am
The whole system of courts with impartial judges and juries are supposed to guard against excessive punishment. That’s why we don’t need tort reform to limit liability (which in the end, only really benefits large corporations and the government).
What we need, is judges willing to throw frivelous cases out before they even start to waste taxpayer money.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:07 am
They are supposed to, Chris, but they don’t, especially juries who perpetuate the LegaLottO presumably so if they get their turn as plaintiffs someday, it’s likely they’ll strike it rich, too. And of course plenty of resentful losers on juries are ever willing to “punish” the “big, bad, evil corporations” no matter what the facts are, simply because they have deep pockets.
They are supposed to, but they don’t. That is why we need tort reform. That’s also why I am not solidly opposed to government taxation of punitive damages. (I just would prefer juries wouldn’t start thinking of the courts as an alternative tax revenue mechanism.)
June 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Hey Rudi,
How do you come to the conclusion that
Roy L. Pearson Jr. is a Republican.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Rudi:
Rudi:
It makes you wonder, since he was making a living with his mind.
How do you know he’s Republican? He’s black, so there’s a greater than 90 per cent chance (especially in DC) that he’s a Democrat.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am
DLS,
I don’t trust the government, or the corporations who have recently been writing our laws, to fairly craft limits on monetary damages.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Rudi,
The lawyer suing the Korean dry cleaners in DC is more than likely a Democrat. He is an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, lives in northeast DC, and is black. Finding a black Republican in DC who is a lawyer is very unlikely.
Bork has probbably entered teh curmudgeon stages when he just needs to go away.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Well, there are black Republicans in DC- so I wouldn’t assume Pearson is a Democrat. Wiki doesn’t cite any political affiliations for him at all. But there was this update:
“Judge Pearson is now facing professional misconduct charges growing out of the incident and the Chungs are going to Bankruptcy court. Americans for the Enforcement of Judicial Ethics AEJE is a judicial watch dog group located in Chicago that has for over 25 years advocated the strict enforcement of judicial ethics.”
June 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
DLS- If you don’t live by it, as far as I’m concerned its self-righteous BS for everyone else, LOL.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
LOL I made the Republican claim up. Seems others Brought up race and politics. It is a trial lawyers group(like Edwards) that is bringing up ethics charges.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1179260861714
The judges handling the case haven’t been kind to Pearson.
http://www.capitalcommunitynews.com/publications/dcnAre you saying Clarence Thomas must be a Democrat?
June 9th, 2007 at 8:38 am
“If you don’t live by it, as far as I’m concerned its self-righteous BS”
Only for those who don’t live by it.