Posted on 07/07/2004 10:51:43 AM PDT by Skooz
Some moronic know-it-all thinks he got the best of Rush on a phone call a few minutes ago, but all he did was show what passes for "debate" in their pathetic world.
Rush was dissecting the guy's arguments in favor of unbridled lawsuit awards. When the guy saw that he had no arguments left, he resorted to (as always) the patented Personal Attack. He accused Rush of having sued someone, Rush stated he could not recall ever doing so.
But, as always, the liberal robot missed the point. Rush was not railing against lawsuits, but lawsuit abuse and the fat cat trial lawyers who get rich by suing companies to the point of bankruptcy.
The caller's question was irrelevant to the discussion.
He was challenging Rush's assertions that many trial lawyers have unnecessarily bankrupted corporations and individuals through their suits, frivolous or otherwise.
To ask Rush, in response, if HE'S ever filed a lawsuit, is the equivalent of asking a fisherman if he's ever wantonly slaughtered large numbers of innocent animals, hoping the fisherman would answer "no."
Playing "gotcha" doesn't add much to a reasonable debate, in my opinion.
Liberals do, indeed, have a nasty habit using diversion as a tactic.
*************
I'm skeptical-it's difficult to believe that one wouldn't remember having sued someone.
Class action suits or what about a fender bender when your insurance company sues on your behalf?
The caller - who sounded like a lawyer - knows that most/many Americans have been involved in some kind of legal action, so he wanted to play gotcha with Rush.
A few points.......Edwards was not involved in class action lawsuits.
Those suits are what drives up the cost of goods.
Kerry was involved in medical malpractice lawsuits which drive the cost of medical care to exhorbitant levels. It also forces some doctors to move out of state or restrict the type of medicine they practice, i.e; obstetrics for instance.
Rush did state that he never filed a lawsuit against anyone for something he himself was responsible for.
I believe Rush mentioned that lawsuit where the woman thought driving with a cup of hot coffee between her legs was a good idea. She burned herself, sued McDonald's and WON a considerable settlement.
That's just it. Everyone hates lawyers and quotes Shakespeare's "first kill all the lawyers", a line spoken between despots in Richard III about how to crush the masses. I agree that there are too many lawyers-- the Economist published a study that showed that each new US graduate lawyer lowers the US GDP by $10 million per year.
Just the same, I'll hire a lawyer and sue someone if I want to.
"She burned herself, sued McDonald's and WON a considerable settlement."
Off the main topic, but a cap on liability would just allow stupid juries to award lower amounts... the problem is the stupid juries to begin with.
Unfortunately the legal profession is in a contest to see which is the 'oldest' profession.....if you get my meaning.
There used to be a doctrine of clean hands.....that seemingly no longer exists.
Frivolous lawsuits are the rule and that McDonald's case was the most notorious abuse.
However, class action suits against fast food will probably equal the tobacco lawsuits.
It could be he had sued, only to later settle and sign a non-disclosure. Not uncommon.
If you are in any business, it is almost impossible NOT to have sued someone at some time for some reason. Most do not go to court, but you have copyright infringements, breach of contract, etc. It was a silly tactic by the little wimp, but it did catch Rush off guard. There is a big difference between a CLASS-ACTION suit for PUNITIVE damages and a suit to get someone to, say, quit using your trademark.
"The guy caught Rush flatfooted."
I heard the exchange and I agree that Rush seemed to be somewhat caught by surprise. The thing that jumped out at me, though, was the fact the smarmy caller needed a week to prove Rush's denial.
"It could be he had sued, only to later settle and sign a non-disclosure. Not uncommon."
The existance of the lawsuit would be public knowledge, only the settlement could be subject to non-disclosure.
...but I love your tagline :-)
Right, but what the Republicans seek to limit is punitives. That is how Rush should have answered this guy. Punitive damages bare NO rational relation to the injury in fact. At least with compensatory damages, there is a way an appeals court can determine if the damages bear a rational relationship to the injury. With punitives, the sky is the limit.
..or it may just be he didn't want to advertise that he filed suit for divorce.
I heard the segment. He had something he really wanted to say, but kept biting his tongue.
How is this even remotely "getting nailed"? So he doesn't recall, lots of legal action going on, including divorce, he may not have been sure that one of them would be an actual suit. Even so, whats the big deal?
Hey Dude! How bout free love?
That would have been "when did you stop filing lawsuits". So what?
I wouldn't call protecting your trademark frivolous! Also likely filed by Rush's managers rather than Rush himself. You need to throw your weight around to protect trademarks, if you have any to throw around.
Ummm...Read closely and you see that Rush didn't sue anybody, rather it was his producer.
Acting on Rush's instructions-- and his producers didn't sue anyone, it was his lawyers. Just the same I don't thing it was the producers hired lawyers to sue Marta for divorce. But hey, it's no crime to hire a lawyer-- lawyers have their role in society just like other honorable professionals. Let's be fair on all sides.
Maybe you should change "honorable" to legal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.