You can f--k your boyfriend in the ass, and big business can f--k you in the ass and the Court clears the way and finds Constitutional reasons to overturn democratic decisions of the people whether through elected voices of the people or jurors. Take care of big business and buggery, that's the theme of this Court.
Judge not, lest ye be judged, Mr. Wonderful....For all have fallen short of the glory of god... On the topic of big business, I believe Jesus said, "Pay unto Ceasar what is Ceaser's"... Why not get a tad more specific about your problems with the highest level of the Judicial branch of federal government? All these fortune cookie riddles you're spitting out are too much for my simple Livingston Parish educated mind...
Sorry for my lack of specificity. The Supreme Court has ruled once again that somewhere buried deep in the carcass of what was once the Constitution is a limit on punitive damages. Much like the Court was able to find a Constitutional right to bugger in that tired old disgraced document...this Court has found another way to protect big business since democracy is such an evil thing. "Bend over and take it" should be the motto of this Court.
So...I guess people should sue McDonald's for hot coffee and making them fat for eating their Big Mac's? I agree that it's difficult to put a cap on punitive damages...but eventually, there has to be a limit as to what someone can pay...Ever taken a look at the Mississippi problems? Juries awarding tens of millions in damages? Go read into it, and you'll realize the need for tort reform and caps on punitive damages...I know it's arbitrary, but we must reach a ceiling... The definition of freedom is merely the boundaries around which one may roam before being told you're no longer free, Mr. Wonderful, and from that aspect, those jury findings for millions and millions were beginning to bounce off those boundaries at an alarmingly more frequent rate...
I think you are probably in the majority TE So why not vote on it? Why pretend that its a Constitutional issue? The Constitution says nothing about punitive damages or buggery. Yet, this Court in his role as legislature/moral police have decided that they don't like what the people (democracy) have decided to do or not do and butchered our Constitution in the process.
My Goodnes a blast from the past.... Mr. W how the heck are you? Are we defending the senator from the great state of Southern Dakota or have we moved on to bigger and blinder fish? How about that Kobe? I heard it might have been a little Led Zeppelin (you know as Twho refers to it, 'in thru the out door...") Who are the picks for the upcoming NBA season? And finally what are your thoughts on OutKast? I heard they are playing at Twho's Barmitzvah this weekend? As always a pleasure to discourse with equals...
Re: I think you are probably in the majority TE If we extend your theory on the constitution, the C is virtually toothless. Speech means the press and via the mouth - nothing more. And for you 2nd amendmenters, arms mean muskets. The theme of the bill of rights is a zone of privacy, so buggery sure as hell isn't the business of the government. As for punys, the court isn't putting a cap on them, is it? Isn't it just allowing congressional or state caps determined by the people's representatives?
Would someone be so bold as to fill me in on what punitive damages are awardable in Louisiana other than that associated with the transportation of hazardous materials and drunk drivers?
I saw on the news today where the mother of the guy who went nuts at the plant he worked at in Meridian and shot some of his co workers before killing himself is suing the company to try to get them to pay her workmans comp because her son died at his workplace. Whats next? Maybe the next dork Arkansas or Auburn fan who starts some smack here and gets put down by a bunch of Tiger fans will sue Brett for providing and atmosphere conducive to having his feelings hurt.
No, this was a continuation of Gore v. BMW Your boy Stevens, found another theme in that old worn out document. This theme said big business shouldn't have to worry about a jury deciding that the punitive portion of the damages exceed a certain percentage of the compensatory damages. I'm not sure what verse that theme is in. Same as I'm not sure why in the buggery case they had to go humming a theme when there is a Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizures and in the faggotry case, the Dallas cops busted down these fags door to "get to them". Instead of legitimately sending the case to the lower level on that basis, our "right-wing" Court decided to make a political statement about buggery. They could have legitimately upheld the Constitution's plain language of the Fourth Amendment and said the people can legitimately make illegal buggery, jerking off at the computer or watching the Chicago White Sox with impressionable children in your den, but the cops can't bust down your door to enforce this law. But, they had a political statement to make, rather than a Constitutional argument.
