I Want a Refund
Posted by Hazel Stone | Filed under Litigious World
Some quick hits on lawsuits in progress…
First, a Mets fan is suing the team because a drunken 300-lb man fell on her, cracking several of her vertebrae. Where is the liability here? The stadium serves alcohol, you know that before you go. I’m sorry you were landed on, Granny, but get a Rascal and get over it.
Next, a Florida man is suing to halt construction of a mosque in Pompano Beach, claiming it “presents a substantial harm to the well-being, safety and health” of the community. Well, that’s just horse manure. If, indeed, the entire Muslim people were as frothing-at-the-mouth crazy as those who willingly detonate themselves in the name of Allah, then we’d all already be praying to the West multiple times per day. They’re people, just like any other group of people. They want to raise their kids, go to work, worship as they like…unmolested by religious nutbars of any stripe.
And, saving the best for last…this lawsuit was brought by a couple of kids who wanted to wear t-shirts featuring “Be Happy, Not Gay” to school (for extra bonus poor-taste points, this was one day after the school’s “Day of Silence” in protest of discrimination against homosexuals), but a district judge upheld the ban on the shirts.
This type of ridiculousness does not belong in a district court, (or any court) and is the reason that dockets of legitmate cases get to be months-long. Yes, the t-shirts are stupid, offensive to some, and generally in bad taste. But their “rights were violated??” Just what rights would those be, kiddos? The rights you have as minor children? Oh wait, you have none. The rights you have as attendees of the school in question? Again, no rights there. The rights you have as gawd-fearing Christians? Nope, still no rights conferred.
And, just in case you poppets were thinking of bandying about the First Amendment in this travesty of a case, wearing an idiotic t-shirt might in some small way be considered “freedom of speech,” but you still have to abide by the rules of the school you attend, and they have a clearly stated policy “to preserve the notion that kids shouldn’t make negative or derogatory comments about other students.” And as students, you are clearly subject to the school’s policies. Go back to school and actually pay attention in Civics this time, twits.
As always, it’s 1) find the money source, 2) invent some phantom wrongdoing, and 3) profit! These people are wasting our money, yours and mine, because WE are paying for these courtrooms, judges and juries. When is enough going to be enough for us?
Tags: profit via judicial system
Help Support Simon-Jester.org!
January 17th, 2008
We really need a loser pays system, so if a plaintiff fails to make their case, they are by default liable for court costs and the cost of the defendants defense. This would seriously reduce the whole “Contingency” type of lawsuit where a lawyer only gets paid if they win. If the prospect of losing meant facing added legal fees, attorneys might be a bit more wary of filing a suit that could not stand the scrutiny of open court.
Of course, I’d have a mechanism by which those costs could be waived, but arguments would have to be made as to how and why the plaintiff felt the case they brought was done so in good faith.
January 17th, 2008
In regards to the t-shirt incident, one thing bothers me. Why is it acceptable for the school to have an anti-discrimination observance day for a lifestyle some consider wrong, but not any recognition of any other point of view (not that the t-shirt was the best method of counter-argument)?
Or, to ask the question I really want the answer to: Is the academic performance of the student body so exemplary, that time can be spent on these other pursuits without affecting the quality of education?
January 17th, 2008
Is it fair? Of course not, but the school gets to decide its own policies, and the students have to abide by them. Parents have the recourse of making complaints through the usual district channels. Not one speck of it, on either side, belongs in the judicial system, however.
January 17th, 2008
A school is under no obligation to honor any minor student’s (or adult student for that matter) right to free speech since it has a compelling need to maintain order. Now if the school was trying to dictate to the kids once off of school property, or trying to dictate terms that are not clearly spelled out in the student handbook, then the kids have a case since once off of school property the school loses it’s compelling interest.
Mike: The school may have had issues with violence or harassment against gay students, which would give them an interest in holding the Day of Silence. Maybe not. Either way, Hazel is right, if you don’t like it, complain to the school board, petition for change, or run for school board yourself.
And the point here was not about Gay v. Straight, but meritless v. good faith lawsuits.
January 17th, 2008
MRS,
I wasn’t attempting to conflate the two issues. I just wonder if the school has a track record of favoring observances of one political or moral leaning over those of another, and whether such blatant discrimination deserves to be challenged in court.
Most times I agree that the practice of settling every minor dispute in court is wasteful, especially considering the budgets of most school systems. But it seems to me that by taking the option off the table, a serious tool against overbearing school boards and administrators (and I’m not implying that they all are) has been removed. There’s a fine line, and I’m not at all sure where it should be drawn.
January 17th, 2008
You are right, if a school administration likes to push pet causes, they need a slap.
If the school board was appointed, and not elected, then I would say you have a point. However, if the school board is elected, a mechanism is already in place to enact change. The problem many have with that mechanism is that it is often slower than the courts, and requires a lot of work.
Just remember, an activist judge is one who makes a ruling you disagree with. (reminds of that joke about the difference between a whore and a bitch…)
January 18th, 2008
Small quibble re: FL Man but Mecca is To The East, even if the hypothetical “we” are in the Pacific Time Zone.
January 18th, 2008
MRS,
I believe that you are spot on as far as the election mechanism goes for redressing wrongs. While more difficult and not as immediate, the results of having a few council-members loosing their jobs might encourage the others to pay more attention to their constituents. If not, they can go too.
Of course, a more ideal solution might be an effective recall mechanism.
As far as activist judges goes, your observation seems to fit the description most of our political class seem to want to use. I would prefer our judges follow the letter of the law. If the law is wrong, it’s not the judiciary’s job to fix it.
January 18th, 2008
Uggh, an effective recall method would be so nice. As it stands now, in most places the laws governing a recall petition are such a PITA that most people just wait to vote the lout out. But I still think the use of a judge to hammer an elected official who has done nothing criminal is a misuse of the judiciary.
And judges are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of a law, but if they can not make a good argument regarding the constitutionality of a law, they have no business messing with it.
January 23rd, 2008
You’re wrong on this one, because you’re forgetting one important thing: it’s a state school, so it’s bound by the constitution. If a school is allowed to ban anything it doesn’t like then why couldn’t the Des Moines school stop the Tinkers from wearing their black armbands? After all, they were disrupting the school’s mission to inculcate patriotism among students, and they must have been upsetting to any children of veterans or of soldiers who were in Vietnam fighting for liberty. So according to you Tinker was wrongly decided? OK, maybe so, but so far it’s still a binding precedent.
January 23rd, 2008
Incorrect. Public schools are bound by the rules and regulations of the school district, end of story. Oh, those girls might win that stupid lawsuit, if they get a sympathetic judge, but that is just indicative of how badly in need of reform is our judicial system.