No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Lawsuit madness' Category

August 29, 2011

Affirmative action for the ugly?

by @ 16:14. Filed under Lawsuit madness.

(H/T – Stacy McCain, who I have been ignoring for far too long)

I can’t write nearly as eloquently, or use nearly as many words in doing so, as Stacy, but this New York Times piece from Daniel S. Hamermesh on how the ugly could and should use the courts to compensate for what genetics and a lifetime of self-abuse didn’t give them just rubs me the wrong way:

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

Mind you, my face could turn Medusa to stone so I would potentially stand to gain from it, but this is just wrong. I’ll let Stacy’s close speak to that:

We cannot resent the world for being the way it is. Or if we do, we are no better than liberals chasing after the ridiculous illusion of “social justice.” So unless we wish to see a lot of ugly people on TV — think of The View, minus Elizabeth Hasselback — there is no point complaining that the medium prefers pretty people. (And I say that at 3:20 p.m. ET, while Shep Smith is on Fox News.)

That reminds me; Shoebox and I had better get a Rule 5-qualifier as a third leg to this place.

May 11, 2009

Doyle policy price sheet, part (I lost count)

by @ 8:30. Filed under Lawsuit madness, Politics - Wisconsin.

Dan Bice caught the largest law firm in the state, Habush, Habush & Rottier, pretty much buying for $245,500 in donations to Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/HoChunk-For Sale) a change in tort law that would have, in some cases, an entity found 1% at fault paying an entire award. Current law requires a majority of fault to be found before an entity is required to pay an entire award.

Allow me to get a quote from Capt. Louis Renault, “I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find Big Lawyers buying policy from the governor.”

January 22, 2009

Part Of The 3, No 3.5, No 4 Million New Jobs?

by @ 5:13. Filed under Lawsuit madness.

There are times in ones life when  one needs to make a decision or forfeit an opportunity.    Buying a lottery ticket,   increasing a bid on EBay or responding to an email from the Nigerian government who wants to provide you millions of dollars if you’ll just let them use your bank account.   The same is true in the opportunity to file lawsuits.  

Under current Federal law, an individual has 180 days from the date of an incident to file a suit for sex discrimination.   That fact was affirmed in 2006 in a case called Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.   In that case, Ledbetter suit Goodyear for sex discrimination and won.   However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision was overturned because Ledbetter had not filed her suit within the statute of limitations.   Ledbetter’s attorney’s attempted to argue that the statute started at the time that any pay impacted by the discrimination was paid.   The thrust of their argument was that as long as Ledbetter stayed employed and had pay impacted by the discrimination act she could sue.   The Supreme Court ruled that when the pay occurred didn’t matter but that the statute starts at the point of the specific act.

Last year the Senate Democrats introduced a bill to correct what they saw as an injustice, identified in the Ledbetter case.   The Dems have introduced a bill that would not just provide a bit more time but that would in essence remove any statute of limitation from the filing of a sex discrimination act as long as the alleged victim was still receiving compensation from the company that allowed the alleged discrimination. “Compensation” as it is currently understood in the bill is not just limited to pay for current services.   Compensation would include any retirement benefits that the alleged victim received well after they ended employment and potentially decades after any alleged incidents.

Enter a little common sense

Senator Hutchison has introduced an amendment to the Ledbetter bill.   The amendment would change the statute of limitations to be 180 days from the date that the alleged victim initially has the reasonable suspicion they’re being discriminated against.

The downside of the Ledbetter Act without amendment is obvious.   With the equivalent of no statute of limitations there are issues of memory or recollection of specific events after 20+ years, is everyone involved still alive.  In the most extreme circumstances it’s possible  that someone who believes they’ve been discriminated against waits for years and years, until they have accumulated the potential for a nice retirement settlement, all while the employee continues to receive payment for their services.

If you don’t think the last scenario could occur, than we have agreement that there should be a statute of limitations.   The question becomes at what length.

While the Hutchison amendment still has some challenges that could cause debates of “what did they know and when did they know it,” the likely outcome is that the statute of limitations would have more flexibility than the current one without leaving it open indefinitely.     After all, can you imagine an offending employer trying to make the case that the filing date should have been earlier because they were clear in their discrimination much earlier than the victim “became aware” of it?   Victims would have fairly wide latitude in claiming “awareness” but would not be allowed a limitless time frame unless there were multiple infractions.  

The only group who appears to be economically disadvantaged by the provisions of the Hutchison amendment versus the Ledbetter Act, would be the trial lawyers.   With the equivalent of no statute of limitations, trial lawyers could go fishing in waters that are potentially limitless.   Fishing at the expense of employers who may have no guilt but will pay attorney fees for alleged acts that had occurred decades previous.

Maybe Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats are counting the new trial lawyer jobs created with their over reaching legislation as their contribution to President Obama’s commitment to creating… many jobs are we up to?

Call you Senator and tell them to support the Hutchison amendment to the Ledbetter Act.   Let’s give victims time to assess their options without giving trial lawyers time to black mail innocent companies.

Revisions/extensions (11:54 am 1/22/2009, steveegg) – The Hutchison amendment failed by a 40-55 vote. Every Democrat who was present (which excludes the ailing-again Ted Kennedy and the MIA Tom Harkin, along with Olympia Snowe (R/PIG-Maine, or RINO-Maine if you prefer), voted against the amendment.

May 21, 2008

House guarantees higher gas prices – Language warning

by @ 16:56. Filed under Lawsuit madness, Politics - National.

(H/T – Jim Hoft)

No, I’m not going to apologize for the language. This is some seriously fucked-up repugnant shit.

By a vote of 324-84, including the entire Wisconsin delegation in the aye column, the House of Representatives passed a law designed to do two things that will do everything but reduce gas prices:

– Allow anti-trust suits against OPEC.
– Demand the 932nd investigation into price-fixing by Big Oil.

I’ll briefly take the second item first. Because of the jackasses in Congress, including the fucktards in the Senate that refused to open up the Colorado oil shale fields, we’re at the extreme high end of the supply-demand curve. OF COURSE there’s going to be massive speculation when demand outstrips supply, and said speculation is going to leverage prices beyond what it would if there was a better balance between demand and supply. I will point out the 931 previous investigations all found that there was no collusion between the traders to keep the price high; what the fuck is gong to be different with the 932nd?

Berry Laker pretty much predicted the response of the market to this piece of horseshit. I missed the intraday charts, but oil closed at $133.17/barrel and wholesale reformulated gas closed at $3.3965/gallon. I’d say that’s a shot across the bow.

Now to the suing OPEC item. There’s a slight problem with that; they’re sovereign nations not subject to territorial law. When the Justice Department comes a-knocking, what do you suppose the reaction of Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC is going to be? If you think they’ll boost production just because a couple lawyers threatened them, I’ll point out that Saudi Arabia brushed off a friendly request from President Bush a couple weeks ago. When some judge decides to try to seize those countries’ assets in the US, what’s more likely; a capitulation from OPEC or a complete shutoff of the spigot and a “FUCK YOU!”? I’ll remind you that we’re more-dependent on OPEC now than we were the previous two times they shut off the spigot, and they shut it off for more-trivial reasons than all of them having their assets seized.

Then there’s the whole question of enforcement. If we’re serious about forcing the OPEC spigots open, it’s going to take a military operation that makes both theaters of WWII look like a training exercise. Talk about your blood for oil. Oh yeah, that’s going to cost a lot.

I do have to take a moment to ask Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner, two Congresscritters who usually know better, “What the fuck are you thinking by signing onto this smelly piece of shit?” There is nothing, I repeat, nothing that could possibly make this worth voting for.

November 29, 2007

Freedom From Religion Foundation – Christmas is verboten

(H/T – Bryan/HotAir Headlines, though since I’m only half-listening to Charlie today, I may have missed his take)

A year after the city of Milwaukee finally acquiesced and restarted calling the joint city/county Christmas Tree a Christmas Tree, Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) introduced a joint resolution to call the tree in the Capitol routunda the “Wisconsin State Christmas Tree”. That tree had been known as just that between 1916 until 1985, when the early hatchlings of political correctness renamed it a “holiday tree” (my memory’s hazy, as I was in high school then, but if it serves, ‘Rats ran all the branches of state government that year). In the interim, the Capitol has become a December playground as every religion, including the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, has displays there. The joint resolution is expected to fly through the Republican-controlled Assembly, but since the Democrats control the Senate, I doubt it will go anywhere. The takehome lines from the public hearing on the resolution yesterday direct from the linked AP article:

Snarlin’ Marlin Schneider (if you want an explanation for the “Snarlin'” tag, I’ll give it in the comments as it’s not exactly germaine in the post) – “I am here today to voice the ire and frustration of the majority of people of the state of Wisconsin who want their Christmas tree back in the state Capitol, not a politically correct holiday tree.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor from FFRF – “The state of Wisconsin cannot have a Christmas anything.”

Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc) – “(Holiday) means holy day, representative of Christmas, the holiest day in the Christian calendar.” (note to Joel, Christmas is #2 on the holy list behind Easter)

Schneider – “If it looks like a Christmas tree, and it smells like a Christmas tree and it’s decorated like a Christmas tree and it has presents under it like a Christmas tree, it’s a Christmas tree!” (emphasis in the original)

September 20, 2007

What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

by @ 16:41. Filed under Lawsuit madness, Presstitute Follies.

Ed Driscoll, who has the title of the year (“The Blogosphere Full Employment Act Of 2007, Part Deux”), delves into the target-rich environment of Gunga Dan RaTHer’s lawsuit against CBS. While Ed focuses on the admission that RaTHer is Ted Baxter, let’s delve into another couple of paragraphs from the E! News story:

In the 32-page filing, Rather claims that (former CBS News president Andrew) Heyward pressed him to focus on the other stories he was working on at the time, such as Bill Clinton’s heart surgery and Hurricane Frances, rather than delve into the Bush story.

Rather, who along with Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw made up one of the most recognizable triumvirate of network news anchors in history, alleges that he served as little more than a glorified narrator for the Bush report and that it was CBS which forced him to issue a public apology on Sept. 20, 2004"””despite his own personal feelings that no public apology from him was warranted.”

If RaTHer was little more than a glorified narrator on his, Mary Richards’, and Murray Slaughter’s personal vendetta against President Bush, why shouldn’t Heyward get him to focus on other stories? Morever, since RaTHer is the public face of CBS News, it is proper that he deliver the apology. If he didn’t want to do it, the door swings out as well as in.

August 28, 2007

Do you still think The Second Sentence or the DOMA amendment was unnecessary?

(H/T – Dad29)

Just to refresh your memory, here is Section 13 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The California Supreme Court is currently considering a consolidated set of cases where the city of San Francisco and assorted nuts want to force California to recognize gay “marriages”. Before I get to the truly-mind-blowing part of the post, here’s a short history cribbed from, an outfit seeking to enshrine marriage into California’s constitution:

– In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which became Family Code section 308.5, which read in entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Do note that, other than a grammatical anomaly and the substitution of “this state” for “California”, that is The First Sentence. Also, do note that the Family Code is part of California’s statutes, not its constitution.

– Between 2003 and 2005, the California Legislature systematically extended every right traditionally reserved for marriage to same-sex couples under the banner “domestic partnerships”, including forcing private entites who either have government contracts or provide insurance to provide full married benefits to same-sex couples.

– In 2004, San Francisco issued same-sex “marriage certificates” in violation of state law. While California’s Supreme Court voided it, it invited a challenge to Family Code 308.5 on “constitutional” grounds, which was promptly issued.

– In 2005, the California courts held those extensions “constitutional” by declaring that Prop 22/Family Code 308.5 only protected the name “marriage” and not any rights associated it, and then extended the force-feeding of same-sex benefits to all entities that provide public accomodations.

– In 2006, an appellate court ruled that Family Code 308.5 did prohibit same-sex “marriage”. That case is part of a consolidated set of marriage cases currently before the California Supreme Court.

Even before we get to the bombshell, we have “(a) legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” created in California. Now, on to the bombshell.

On June 20, the California Supreme Court asked the interested parties in the consolidated marriage cases referenced above to answer four questions:

  1. What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware.
  2. What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional “right
    to marry” that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution?
  3. Do the terms “marriage” or “marry” themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of “marriage” to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage?
  4. Should Family Code section 308.5 – which provides that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” – be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same-sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same-sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted?

Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (RINO-Hollywood and Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-Moon) filed briefs that answered the first 3 questions essentially identically.

Answer #1 summary (identical in both briefs) – There Are No Differences Between the Legal Rights and Benefits or the Legal Obligations and Duties Provided to Married Couples and Those Provided to Registered Domestic Partners Under California Law. Mostly noted above, though Brown’s brief took the added step of noting that even if “marriage” were granted to same-sex couples, it would not be recognized under federal law or by other states.

To that, I say, “Only until the Ninth Circus gets a hold of it.”

Answer #2 summary (Brown’s brief) – Although a Compelling Justification Would Be Needed Before the State Could Forbid a Man and a Woman from Entering into the Essential Relationship We Know as Marriage, Married Couples Do Not Possess Any Substantive Right Or Obligation Under Californa Law That Could Not Be Eliminated by Legislative Action Supported by a Rational Basis. (Schwarzenegger’s brief summary begins after the comma) Of particular note is the last sentence of both briefs (Brown’s brief quoted; Schwarzenegger’s brief essentially identical) – “But the State submits that, except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual committment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be aborgated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.”

In short, the only guaranteed right of marriage in California is to choose one’s “life partner” (the phrase is used in both briefs). Before I get to the item that makes even this moot in the eyes of the executive branch of California’s government, I will note that Schwarzenegger urges in his answer to the fourth question that Family Code section 308.5 be interpreted to mean that same-sex “marriages” not be recognized regardless of where they were entered into.

Answer #3 summary (identical in both briefs) – No Constitutional Provision Would Prohibit Changing the Name of the Marriage Relationship to Some Other Name. And thus “marriage” and Proposition 22/Family Code section 308.5 die. I will note that Schwarzenegger’s brief notes that the reference to “marriage” in Prop 22 might mean that any change in the name could require a vote of the people.

In short, without The Second Sentence, and without the protection of being part of Wisconsin’s constitution, The First Sentence would have been utterly meaningless, as it would neither have defended the institution of marriage nor the name of marriage itself.

July 23, 2007

Unleash the Photoshoppers on the enemies of John Doe

Head on down to Michelle’s blog and take in the brilliance that is the army of Photoshoppers as we take on the DhimmiRATs’ elimination of protections for John Doe. Since this will in all likelyhood trigger a pingback, I don’t want to be empty-handed, and created a rotating sign.


July 20, 2007

Can we sue the lawyers, CAIR and the DhimmiRATs when the next successful terrorist attack takes place?

Revisions/extensions (10:55 am 7/20/2007) – It was (as likely as I can determine) Justin Higgins at Right on the Right that created the graphic. Sorry about not passing along proper credit earlier.

(H/T – Michelle)

The Dhimms, including Wisconsin’s twin embarrassments, Russ el-Slimeroad (Moonbat-Al Qaeda) and Nobody’s Senator, Herb Kohl, as well as Dhimm Presidential candidates Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, voted to kill protections for John Does mere hours after the House killed it. The John Doe amendment was intended to protect those that report suspicious behavior from lawsuits such as the one filed by the infamous Flying Imams. In “honor” of this, CDR Salamander has created a new PSA poster


I have a message for them – I am STILL John Doe, and if your minions decide to pull any shit in my presence, I won’t just be informing on them and waiting for the police to do something.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (11:22 am 7/20/2007) – WisCon, commenting on Michelle’s thread, has el-Slimeroad’s initial statement on his support of the Islamokazis and lawyers:

From Russ Feingold’s office:

"The bill is too ambiguous and too complex blah blah blah."

So that’s why he voted against it, because it’s too complex?

"He is preparing a statement right now and I can send it to you."

I put in a request to WisCon to get a copy if he does.

May 7, 2007

Reason #538 to not introduce socialized medicine

by @ 17:30. Filed under Lawsuit madness, Politics.

I missed where Jeff Wagner (who needs to go through the 12-step lawyer-recovery program again) got this story, but I knew Allahpundit would come through as he always does. Sky News relays the story of one John Brandrick from Newquay, Cornwall, England. Two years ago, Royal Cornwall Hospital in Treliske diagnosed him with terminal pancreatic cancer with a 6- to 12-month life expectancy. So, he did what any self-worshiping moron would do in that situation; he quit his job, stopped paying his rent, and spent all his money.

Needless to say, they screwed up the diagnosis, and eventually determined (after he survived past a year) non-fatal pancreatitis. Now, like any good lieberal, he wants his many Pounds of flesh (side note; God bless the Brits for not signing onto the Euro). The money quote – “But if you haven’t got any money – it was my fault, I spent it all – they should pay something back.”

Unlike Jeff (and like Charlie’s producer, Joe Scialfa), I have absolutely, positively no sympathy for this idiot. Take a look at the money quote. Mr. Brandrick admitted that his current financial condition is all his fault. If I were a judge, I would read that part of the quote back to him as I dismissed the suit. It definitely is true that a fool and his money are soon parted.

That having been said, this illustrates a pair of big problems with socialized medicine. First, where would Mr. Brandrick have gone for a second (or third, or fourth) opinion, like any self-respecting American would? Another gubmint-run hospital, staffed with gubmint-employed doctors that would have made the same 3rd-rate “diagnosis”. Second, just how did they make that diagnosis? Geez, you would think they would have been bright enough to perform a biopsy after finding the tumor, but I’ll bet that step was taken out in the interests of gubmint-ordered “cost control”.

January 5, 2007

One last Mushroom update

by @ 10:24. Filed under Lawsuit madness, Politics - National.

Harriet Miers, not-at-all-affectionately refered to on this blog as the Mushroom when President Bush floated her as a Supreme Court nominee, is leaving her post as White House Counsel as of January 31. According to Fox News the real reason for her resignation was the fact that Karl Rove is anticipating non-stop lawsuits from the ‘Rat-infested Congress, and Miers’ career as a civil litigator left her woefully unprepared in either the criminal law or separation-of-powers disciplines.

And this is the broad that Bush wanted us conservatives to swallow on the Supreme Court? Most of SCOTUS’ work is in those two disciplines.

March 31, 2006

Yet another reason to not do business in Wisconsin

by @ 8:46. Filed under Lawsuit madness.

This morning’s paper has the story of 2 guys who were awarded more than $385,000 from DaimlerChrysler for an oft-broken 2003 Dodge Viper, which went for about $80,000 new. Let’s review a few items from the story:

  • The lawsuit was filed in 2004 by James Mortle of Muskego and Joe Kiriaki of Franklin over a muscle car they bought because of its performance prowess. – That’s all well and good, but this intent should have come back to haunt them, as their later actions will show.
  • On Aug. 1, 2003, according to court records, 71 miles after the 500-mile break-in period, the differential broke for the first time. – I didn’t know break-in periods only last 500 miles nowadays. My 2004 Subaru Outback Sport had a break-in period of 1,000 miles.
  • It was repaired, but just 13 days later, with the odometer reading 686 miles, the differential broke again, court records say. Over the next six months, the differential broke four more times, each time while being shifted from first to second gear at around 50 mph. – Now that is very odd, especially considering that Road and Track states that the maximum redline speed in first gear is 59 mph. Further, 50 mph in first gear would be roughly 5085 rpm on the engine, well below the peak of its power (500 hp at 5600 rpm).
  • When the Viper was running like it was designed to, Mortle reached 122 mph in a quarter mile on a drag strip, he said. – That’s odd; R&T only got to 119 mph in the quarter-mile. I’m reasonably sure they ran the engine right up to the redline and the rev limiter to get that performance. They also tested the more-aerodynamic, lighter (3000 pounds curb weight vs 3390 pounds curb weight for the stock Viper), more-powerful (520 hp) Viper Competition Coupe wearing racing slicks, and that car only reached 122 mph in the quarter-mile. I strongly suspect that these two yahoos stopped off at the aftermarket performance shop and did some engine modifications (modifications that would tend to void warranties; I know Subaru would void my warranty if I were to apply some of the performance-enhancing parts out there).
  • But after the differential broke for the sixth time, the manufacturer refused to cover any more repairs, records show. Mortle asked for a replacement Viper under the state’s lemon law, according to the lawsuit, but the manufacturer refused, contending that he and Kiriaki abused the car. – Frankly, I’m surprised that DaimlerChrysler waited until the 6th blown differential to suspect something. Taking a car out racing tends to void warranties; at least, it would void mine if I were crazy enough to take my car out racing. Further, doing bonzai quarter-mile runs at a speed an unmodified Viper is incapable of reaching just screams, “Car abuse!”

To wit, we have a pair of yahoos who pushed their car beyond its limit, almost certainly violated at least one part of their obligations under the warranty they had, and got a judge and jury to ignore that to give them one big payday. I sure hope the other car manufacturers were paying attention.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]