I've always been amused when the right froths at the mouth of about trial lawyers and tort reform....and then turns around and engages in exactly that sort of behavior.
The former top Senate staffer and key GOP strategist, who was fired after having an affair with Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, filed a wrongful termination suit Monday against his former employer that could bring allegations of discrimination, sexual affairs and backroom politics into open court.
His complaint alleges that "similarly situated female legislative employees, from both political parties, were not terminated from their employment positions despite intimate relationships with male legislators."
Oh really? Hee hee hee....
4 comments:
You fling around the term "tort reform" here any time someone on the right files a lawsuit, even when a tort isn't even a part of the lawsuit. A discrimination lawsuit is filed and Mark immediately yells "tort reform!".
A tort is an act that injures a person in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. The type of tort reform I want caps the amount of damages one can receive. Speaking for myself, I never said people can’t or shouldn’t bring slander, breach of contract, or discrimination lawsuits like this, I just don’t want these outrageous sums granted out(like $50 million for some moron suing someone for the littlest thing).
Since you used to be against “making shit up and passing it off as fact”, shouldn’t we let the courts decide this accusation of discrimination instead of trusting your limited knowledge of the legal system that apparently claims that anybody to the right of you should not file any lawsuit under any circumstances, on the basis of some idiotic hypocrisy clause that exists in your head?
I'm sure your female brothers in arms will be happy to know that discrimination lawsuits are somehow automatically frivolous and hypocritical as long as you disagree with the politics of the person filing the lawsuit.
All lawyers are not trial lawyers either.
So, Lilly Ledbetter=bad and this guy=good. Got it.
I'm talking about more than just tort reform. I'm talking about "frivolous" lawsuits and how they are conveniently OK when the right is somehow the victim (also an irony).
What you don't realize is that by taking the stance that you do, you erode any sort of power the individual has and transfer it to a collective...a corporation.
I find this very confusing. He is suing the state Senate - isn't that the same as suing the state of MN itself? How could he be a state employee (of some sort) and a Republican Party official and campaign flunky all at the same time? Doesn't your state have any conflict of interest law?
Slow down - I never said this lawsuit was good or that I even support it. I don't know if he was discriminated against or not - that's for the courts and the evidence to decide. I didn't take a stance on it either. I said it could move forward...take your first sentence and reverse it and you have your position. Got it.
We don't know if it is frivolous yet. I disagree with Obamas view on the Ledbetter lawsuit and I said why based on the evidence brought forward in the case (you read it). I don't know what the evidence in this case is. When politics is your religion, you see everything through that prism - there are people on both sides of lawsuits of all political stripes.
Know that the lawyers working on the case aren't trial lawyers and this guy isn't asking for 200 freakin million dollars in damages.
Post a Comment