GOP sure gets dumber by the moment

[MarcATL]

Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law.
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.

 

[mudwhistle]

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.

It would be easier to fix the ACA site.

You know what you're asking is nonsense.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.

Gee, that wasnt hard.
Louis Selkirk, Mason man, suing Duke Energy over racial discrimination, wrongful termination - Local News Story
Fat ****** couldn't stay below 285lbs but was fired because he was black. After 18 years for the company. Maybe no one noticed he was black before then?

Here's another one. They arent hard to find.
Former police sergeant's federal lawsuit against city alleges racial discrimination, wrongful termination / LJWorld.com

 

[The Rabbi]

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.

It would be easier to fix the ACA site.

You know what you're asking is nonsense.

Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.

 

[Gadawg73]

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.

Plenty of frivolous lawsuits filed by blacks and whites and everyone trying to game the system.
However, there are protections in place in the law to protect the defendants pre trial and most all of them are thrown out at summary judgment leaving the plaintiff nothing and the attorney that brought the action out 10 grand of their own money.
You do not deny equal protection under the law for anyone just because some attempt to take advantage of it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.

It would be easier to fix the ACA site.

You know what you're asking is nonsense.

Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.

No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.

 

[The Rabbi]

It would be easier to fix the ACA site.

You know what you're asking is nonsense.

Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.

No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.

OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, it depends on "frivolous." And 'all". Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling. But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot. Then again, look who we're dealing with.

No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.

OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?

Never said at any time it never happened.
The Constitution was not written with what the legal behavior of people would be.
The Constitution was written to make sure the behavior of GOVERNMENT was in check and limiting it, NOT the individual rights of the PEOPLE.
You think you know everything about everything.
Everybody is smarter than you and me and everyone else about something.
You are not a master of all trades so quit claiming to be.
You are very susceptible to rumor and innuendo that matches your ideology.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.

OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?

Never said at any time it never happened.
The Constitution was not written with what the legal behavior of people would be.
The Constitution was written to make sure the behavior of GOVERNMENT was in check and limiting it, NOT the individual rights of the PEOPLE.
You think you know everything about everything.
Everybody is smarter than you and me and everyone else about something.
You are not a master of all trades so quit claiming to be.
You are very susceptible to rumor and innuendo that matches your ideology.

OK, so someone hacked your account and wrote this:

That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.

The thrust of your post is that frivolous suits are not a worry because the standard of evidence is high. I have shown that such suits exist. They might prevail often enough. The threat of suits alone alters behavior by employers, imposing a cost on the firm and society.
Your response is an ad hom and some irrelevant bullshit about the Constitution. You have lost this argument. Yet again. Your boast about beating me with hands tied is laughably refuted.
You're dismissed.

 

[Gadawg73]

OK, so you admit that such suits happen. But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior? Really? Have you thought this out very well?

Never said at any time it never happened.
The Constitution was not written with what the legal behavior of people would be.
The Constitution was written to make sure the behavior of GOVERNMENT was in check and limiting it, NOT the individual rights of the PEOPLE.
You think you know everything about everything.
Everybody is smarter than you and me and everyone else about something.
You are not a master of all trades so quit claiming to be.
You are very susceptible to rumor and innuendo that matches your ideology.

OK, so someone hacked your account and wrote this:

That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.

The thrust of your post is that frivolous suits are not a worry because the standard of evidence is high. I have shown that such suits exist. They might prevail often enough. The threat of suits alone alters behavior by employers, imposing a cost on the firm and society.
Your response is an ad hom and some irrelevant bullshit about the Constitution. You have lost this argument. Yet again. Your boast about beating me with hands tied is laughably refuted.
You're dismissed.

Dumbass, I stated that defendants will not throw large amounts of cash at plaintiffs just because they filed suit. That will never happen.
You are a dishonest old fuck. Your behavior suggests you filed a frivolous "have a wreck, get a check" with your local TV lawyer at least once recently.
This is not the same as the 15 grand you pocketed with your chiropractor after Granny hit you going 2 miles a hour in the parking lot.