“I’m Going To Drag Your Asses Into Federal Court... Slander? How can that be?

[Liability]

They spent the last two years, in particilar, demonizing "trial lawyers" and turning it into a curse word. But all of a sudden its a badge of honor and patriotism.

Just because a FarRW nutter like Levin's decided to consider mucking up the legal system with his nonsensical and false claims.

CLASSIC!!!



P.S. - it was actually more like the last 4 years, because they ramped up the demonization of Lawyers once they saw Obama on the scene and wanted to shut him down.

Nonsense. What conservatives have voiced some objection to is the trial lawyers who get rich suing the bejeezuz outta medical corporations, hospitals, manufacturers, doctors, etc., all over the unhappy OUTCOME of some medical procedures without acknowledging that medicine doesn't come with guarantees.

Nobody objects to suing the snot out of a doctor or hospital for actual malpractice that causes actual injury, imposing actual expenses. The objection (which dishonest libbies like you try to paper over) is to the resort to such lawsuits ABSENT genuine negligence. The COSTS of engaging in "defensive medicine" for truly frivolous lawsuits is staggering.

Threatening Matthews with a lawsuit -- which is to say, advising him that words can have consequences -- is not the same thing as filing a frivolous lawsuit. And even if Levin were to proceed, and even if it turned out to BE an actually baseless "frivolous" suit, there are remedies available to the aggrieved party. Matthews would (a) probably get any frivolous lawsuit tossed out. AND, depending on jurisdiction, he might even get an award of costs and legal fees. His lawyers might get creative and counter-sue Levin for the malicious prosecution of a frivolous lawsuit.

But all of that speculation is WAY premature. Levin hasn't filed any suit (yet). he may never do so. And if he ever does, it might not prove to be "frivolous" at all.

Levin REGULARLY (through landmark legal) engages in litigation. He is not one to engage in knee-jerk rhetoric about all lawyers. Not even about all trial lawyers. And there's still no hypocrisy inherent in a lawyer who criticizes an overly litigious society on the one hand using the legal system (where appropriate) on the other hand.

 

[Big Fitz]

RWers are infamous for demonizing lawyers and/or those that suck up the resources of the Courts over frivolities....The irony.

And leftists are notorious for supporting frivilous lawsuits to forward THEIR political cause.

Oh the Irony!

It's ironic that you don't know what the word "irony" means...

I haven't seen any liberals who want to stop Levin from suing. We just know that no lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Because we know what the law says.

I wonder if he's going hire one of those dreaded trial lawyers association members...

Just guessing it's accurate to assume you incorrectly believe you aren't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah, right. Attorney Mark Levin probably doesn't understand our system as well as the Dr.IsInsane.

Really valid post, there, nitwit.

You're right, Mark Levin probably does know the law.

But he's taking advantage of the fact that you (and most of his listeners) clearly don't.

Either Mark Levin doesn't understand the law, or he's full of shit, and all you guys are eating it up. Look up the legal definition of defamation of public figures, and find me a single comment by ANYONE on the left that would qualify as such.

Try to untangle your own verbal web, silly boi.

My reply to you was as to your absurd claim about Mark Levin not knowing or understanding what he was talking about.

I accept your concession that he does.

Now, we turn to your claim that since YOU deem his threat of a lawsuit to be un-meritorious, therefore HE must be lying. While I happen to believe that there is probably no genuine prospect that he will ever sue Matthews for saying that he (Levin) bears responsibility for the Arizona tragedy, I (unlike you) recognize that the possibility of a valid lawsuit DOES exist.

I don't have to find you anything. Mark Levin took issue with what Matthews said. So, do your own homework. Many of us already have. What Matthews said is recorded and is available on the web. Try Google. It shouldn't be so difficult for you to locate.

"Every time you listen to them, they are furious," he said. "Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with some ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk and it never changes."

Not only does that not equate to slander in any sense of the word, it's also an entirely true statement.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And leftists are notorious for supporting frivilous lawsuits to forward THEIR political cause.

Oh the Irony!

It's ironic that you don't know what the word "irony" means...

I haven't seen any liberals who want to stop Levin from suing. We just know that no lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Because we know what the law says.

I wonder if he's going hire one of those dreaded trial lawyers association members...

Just guessing it's accurate to assume you incorrectly believe you aren't.

Well, I can't argue with that kind of "logic", can I?

 

[MarcATL]

Nonsense. What conservatives have voiced some objection to is the trial lawyers who get rich suing the bejeezuz outta medical corporations, hospitals, manufacturers, doctors, etc., all over the unhappy OUTCOME of some medical procedures without acknowledging that medicine doesn't come with guarantees.

Nobody objects to suing the snot out of a doctor or hospital for actual malpractice that causes actual injury, imposing actual expenses. The objection (which dishonest libbies like you try to paper over) is to the resort to such lawsuits ABSENT genuine negligence. The COSTS of engaging in "defensive medicine" for truly frivolous lawsuits is staggering.

Threatening Matthews with a lawsuit -- which is to say, advising him that words can have consequences -- is not the same thing as filing a frivolous lawsuit. And even if Levin were to proceed, and even if it turned out to BE an actually baseless "frivolous" suit, there are remedies available to the aggrieved party. Matthews would (a) probably get any frivolous lawsuit tossed out. AND, depending on jurisdiction, he might even get an award of costs and legal fees. His lawyers might get creative and counter-sue Levin for the malicious prosecution of a frivolous lawsuit.

But all of that speculation is WAY premature. Levin hasn't filed any suit (yet). he may never do so. And if he ever does, it might not prove to be "frivolous" at all.

Levin REGULARLY (through landmark legal) engages in litigation. He is not one to engage in knee-jerk rhetoric about all lawyers. Not even about all trial lawyers. And there's still no hypocrisy inherent in a lawyer who criticizes an overly litigious society on the one hand using the legal system (where appropriate) on the other hand.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's ironic that you don't know what the word "irony" means...

I haven't seen any liberals who want to stop Levin from suing. We just know that no lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Because we know what the law says.

I wonder if he's going hire one of those dreaded trial lawyers association members...

Just guessing it's accurate to assume you incorrectly believe you aren't.

Well, I can't argue with that kind of "logic", can I?

Till you post an argument worth responding to without derision, I will.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just guessing it's accurate to assume you incorrectly believe you aren't.

Well, I can't argue with that kind of "logic", can I?

Till you post an argument worth responding to without derision, I will.

Honestly, I could care less whether you respond to my posts or not.

But responding to my posts with ad homs and pretty pictures from the internets doesn't make you right, it makes you look like a fool.

 

[goldcatt]

Nonsense. What conservatives have voiced some objection to is the trial lawyers who get rich suing the bejeezuz outta medical corporations, hospitals, manufacturers, doctors, etc., all over the unhappy OUTCOME of some medical procedures without acknowledging that medicine doesn't come with guarantees.

Nobody objects to suing the snot out of a doctor or hospital for actual malpractice that causes actual injury, imposing actual expenses. The objection (which dishonest libbies like you try to paper over) is to the resort to such lawsuits ABSENT genuine negligence. The COSTS of engaging in "defensive medicine" for truly frivolous lawsuits is staggering.

Threatening Matthews with a lawsuit -- which is to say, advising him that words can have consequences -- is not the same thing as filing a frivolous lawsuit. And even if Levin were to proceed, and even if it turned out to BE an actually baseless "frivolous" suit, there are remedies available to the aggrieved party. Matthews would (a) probably get any frivolous lawsuit tossed out. AND, depending on jurisdiction, he might even get an award of costs and legal fees. His lawyers might get creative and counter-sue Levin for the malicious prosecution of a frivolous lawsuit.

But all of that speculation is WAY premature. Levin hasn't filed any suit (yet). he may never do so. And if he ever does, it might not prove to be "frivolous" at all.

Levin REGULARLY (through landmark legal) engages in litigation. He is not one to engage in knee-jerk rhetoric about all lawyers. Not even about all trial lawyers. And there's still no hypocrisy inherent in a lawyer who criticizes an overly litigious society on the one hand using the legal system (where appropriate) on the other hand.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

His facts are correct.

His position on med mal is one I don't entirely share, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China as far as this thread goes.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, I can't argue with that kind of "logic", can I?

Till you post an argument worth responding to without derision, I will.

Honestly, I could care less whether you respond to my posts or not.

But responding to my posts with ad homs and pretty pictures from the internets doesn't make you right, it makes you look like a fool.

pretty weak retort, doc