Forums

The earth is indeed flat

The earth is indeed flat

The internet has the opportunity to educate all. It is sad to see how it becomes a source for alternate truth and facts. Many including some on this forum use the internet to skip studies and facts and go straight to their alternate facts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-49021903

blue adept | August 14, 2019

@NKYTA

Surprisingly, a number of people in Kentucky already own Tesla's, so perhaps regional socio-cultural perceptions are finally shifting in the right direction the more that people are confronted with the reality of the matter?

@jimglas

Sad to say, but it does seem to be that way.

rxlawdude | August 19, 2019

@blue, I think there is no private cause of action for legislators' actions, but regardless, in this case subject matter jurisdiction and getting past the "political question" jurisdiction issues seem problematic to me. If you think about it, allowing any court review of individual legislator's votes offends the separation of powers and would be an astonishingly bad precedent.
Then again, I'm not a litigator or constitutional lawyer. :-)

NKYTA | August 19, 2019

@rx, at least -you- understand their language.

This has been a ? for me, for a while,

What does politics have to do with actual laws?!?

Is the “political question” ever supposed to be able to be lawful?

blue adept | August 21, 2019

@rxlawdude

Oh, I see, you don't get the whole "abuse of invested authority" aspect of their behavior...

Never mind, just the right context on the wrong sort of forum.

blue adept | August 21, 2019

@NKYTA

If I might interject..."politics" are relevant in that politicians are the ones who write and decide what our laws are to be and how they're enforced, which puts them in a particularly influential position in our governance and renders them equally subject to scrutiny of the public purview, especially in cases where their political leanings ("special interests" for example) seem to be more of an influence on their decisions as opposed to what's actual best for the public-at-large whose interests they're elected to champion and protect.

In this context, it is clearly erroneous for them to place the concerns of the NRA and/or gun manufacturers' shareholders over those of their constituents and/or those who elected them into office.

I hope that was clear enough..."?"

SCCRENDO | August 21, 2019

All this legal talk has me confused. Maybe the earth is flat and Mars is round and I just don't understand it. LOL. Keep it up guys

blue adept | August 21, 2019

@SCCRENDO

To put it in layman's terms, politicians are elected by the public-at-large (the citizens of their particular state/region, you, me, your friends and neighbors, etc.) to represent them and their interests in the Capitol, NOT so-called "special interests" like the oil, gas, coal, auto, or even firearm, industries who're only selfishly focused on the pursuit of what is best for them and their shareholders and to hell with everyone else.

Politicians, because of their position in the government hierarchy, are empowered with certain privileges, among them being the ability to decide what our laws are by what legislation gets passed in the House, so it is very important to know what their mindset is and whatever their political leanings might be.

Likewise, while they might enjoy some degree of immunity from prosecution for their actions/votes, they are nonetheless beholden/answerable to the public-at-large who voted them into office inasmuch as they are in the business of "public service" and are public service workers,particularly in instances where they've abused or misused their 'invested authority'.

*** This concludes this portion of the Civics and Politics syllabus ***

SCCRENDO | August 21, 2019

@blue adept. Thank you for the lesson. I do appreciate it. And I agree with you now that I understand.

blue adept | August 21, 2019

@SCCRENDO

You're welcome!

Glad I could help to sort that out for you/get us all on the same page so we'll all know what's going on.

rxlawdude | August 21, 2019

Um, in checking Weslaw for cases involving "abuse of invested authority," there are none.

blue, please cite a case where this was ever applied to duly elected legislators.

rxlawdude | August 21, 2019

Now, for "invested authority," there's a 1969 case where a city council repealed a prior law giving the mayor the right to appoint committees. The council than appointed the committees. Mayor sued. Mayor lost.

I predict anyone suing legislators for resulting consequences of a law they enacted will lose. Bigly (to paraphrase the Orange-a-tan).

blue adept | August 21, 2019

@rxlawdude

Perhaps you should try looking under 'vested' (as opposed to 'invested') authority/immunity...

Anyway, try having a look at these:

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)

Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)

rxlawdude | August 21, 2019

@blue, all of those cases involved executive branch employees (i.e. law officers). These are not applicable and again I suspect no court would touch a case such as you describe. And, just FYI, Harlow stands for the proposition that government officials doing their duty are generally immune from civil liability.
Dig harder. :-)
Or, let's not clog up the thread with 1-L banter.

SCCRENDO | August 21, 2019

It’s my thread and I’m enjoying it. The point of this thread is to show that there are idiotic statements being made without evidence. And you guys are proving that intelligent people have differences of opinion yet can work it out by citing evidence and debating the interpretation. Please continue. I’m looking forward to an agreed conclusion or an agreement to disagree. Nobody has told me why the Earth is flat and Mars is round.

blue adept | August 27, 2019

@rxlawdude

I realize that you're only trying to goad me but Harlow, just as do the other two, sets out what preconditions would need be met for members of the upper level governmental hierarchy (like legislators and even the President) to be liable for the abuse of their vested authority in the execution of their duties which, when reviewed in context with the precedents I previously posted in my 'proximate cause' argument on the previous page, would've outlined an undefeatable strategy for successfully suing government officials.

You would've found that out on your own had you exercised a little due diligence and bothered to actually read them...Hell, even a first year law student would know to do that.

But you're right, this isn't the forum for such discussions, though I'm curious, what sort of work is it that you said you do rx...law...dude?

BTW, didn't opioid maker J&J just lose a ruling and isn't Purdue looking to settle for billions of dollars?

blue adept | August 27, 2019

@SCCRENDO

Yeah, rxlawdude is being a little snarky with me at the moment, but I'm glad that you find our exchange so entertaining and, hopefully, informative.

It's likely that no one has told you "why" because the Earth actually isn't 'flat' and Mars is, indeed, "round"...?

rxlawdude | August 28, 2019

@blue adept, you are entitled to your opinion, but precedence and separation of powers say you're wrong.

Find a case on point - a LEGISLATIVE BRANCH official charged with any private-action liability for a duly cast legislative vote.

rxlawdude | August 28, 2019

Oh, and as far as J&J and other opioid manufacturer cases, let's see how far the appeals go. Likely to need SCOTUS.

Question: Does marketing a drug in conformance with FDA approved labeling inure product liability?

(Please note I am NOT a fan of Pharma. In fact, I frequently write and teach about ethical issues in that industry, and there's no shortage of cases!)

SCCRENDO | September 2, 2019

Bump for HADRON COLLIDER

blue adept | September 4, 2019

@rxlawdude

Those are the sort of cases that, typically, have been "settled" out of court to avoid the sort of public scrutiny that would undermine the government's perception of due authority in the eyes of its citizenry.

There are, however, exceptions to the rule that would preclude the ability to keep certain matters out of the public eye and that is exactly what the whole gun violence issue has grown to become, a matter that is impossible to ignore or disregard or cover up.

As for a "case on point", I'm not inclined to reveal my hand to someone who has already demonstrated on just which side of the aisle they sit, but suffice it to say that, if I come for you...I. Come. For. It. All.

I haven't worn my 'lawyer hat' in many years now and, to be honest, I'd prefer not to have to, but the current state of our nation's affairs isn't leaving me much of a choice.

Oh, and as far as J&J and other opioid manufacturer cases, let's see how far the appeals go. Likely to need SCOTUS.

Question: Does marketing a drug in conformance with FDA approved labeling inure product liability?

(Please note I am NOT a fan of Pharma. In fact, I frequently write and teach about ethical issues in that industry, and there's no shortage of cases!)

J&J might appeal, but I doubt it given that they're a multi-billion dollar ($81.58 billion last year), multinational company and are likely interested in putting an end to the years of controversy they've been mired in, what with the whole asbestos contaminated talcum/baby powder thing and what have you, and $572 million isn't even a rounding error for them, more like pocket change/the difference between whether they have sushi or lobster at the annual shareholder meeting.

On the other hand Purdue is offering the settlement as opposed to being encouraged to make it, so I don't see any intent on their behalf to appeal anything as they appear really interested in getting out from under the microscope, likely to avoid additional liability for other issues they are, no doubt, responsible for.

Before I can answer I first need to know whether you meant "inure" or 'insure' as it's not so much 'what' is said as it is 'how' you say it in the legal arena and second, it depends on the context/product inasmuch as labeling and marketing are two entirely different animals.

Care to provide a bit more clarification/context?

blue adept | September 4, 2019

@SCCRENDO

I would like to take this time to discourage you from attempting to discuss matters that are beyond your comprehensive ability both for your own psychological well being and to help you to save you some face here on the virtual world of the perpetual Interwebz.

I mean, you guys still haven't managed to get your heads around that whole little thermodynamics workaround (that quite literally everyone told me was "impossible") I devised that NASA made use of and I even provided a video explaining the concept of it!

If you're just wanting some basic info about it then that's all good.

SCCRENDO | September 4, 2019

@blue adept. What are you referring to?

rxlawdude | September 4, 2019

@blue. "Inure" means come into operation; take effect. My question makes sense and no, I did not mean "insure."

Second, you failed to cite any case law that supports your contention that a legislator is subject to civil liability as a result of a duly cast vote. Now, your response is "[a]s for a "case on point", I'm not inclined to reveal my hand to someone who has already demonstrated on just which side of the aisle they sit, but suffice it to say that, if I come for you...I. Come. For. It. All."

Buh bye. Nothing more to discuss. You've not produced even a scintilla of evidence supporting your contention.

blue adept | September 4, 2019

@SCCRENDO

Your "Bump for HADRON COLLIDER...."

blue adept | September 4, 2019

@rxlawdude

Never said that your question didn't 'make sense', only questioned whether your use of the term "inure" (yes, I know what it means) was intentional or not as, as I've said, '...it's not so much 'what' is said as it is 'how' you say it in the legal arena....'

I'm aware that the legislative acts of a member are not a proper subject of judicial scrutiny, but only in so far as they do not violate standing legal precedent/contradict the rule of law, check out Romer for one example of a legislator being held accountable.

Also, again, I'm not inclined to reveal my hand to whom might be opposing counsel before the fact, so you say you've "[n]othing more to discuss", fair enough.

SCCRENDO | September 4, 2019

My bump was for the earth is flat and Mars is round. Not for the legal stuff. That is a side bar that I won’t get involved in. I enjoy debating half wits for the sport. It helps me with my debates with my infant grandchildren. Except I am more tolerant with my grandchildren. My 3 year old granddaughter is into the planets. Even she knows that all planets are round and Saturn has rings. We watched the first lunar landing together. She wanted to be an astronaut. But there is one problem. My athletic feminist daughter tries not to raise her daughter as a prissy little female. But she is so into dresses. She even wants to sleep in her Moans dress. I told her she cannot wear a dress to the moon. And that is a dealbreaker. So my granddaughter will not be an astronaut

blue adept | September 4, 2019

@SCCRENDO

I don't understand how your daughter correlates your 3 year old granddaughter's desire to be an astronaut with "a prissy little female" as astronauts are anything but "prissy" but, yeah, I don't think a "dress" is an acceptable form of astronaut attire.

Hmm, what about ballet? It would teach her poise, balance, posture, strength, structure, form and stamina, plus, she'd be able to wear a dress...Tutu's! And, as an aside, I think she might be able to smuggle a tutu up to the ISS to pose in for a pic!

As for the LHC, that has little to do with the whole 'the Earth is flat and Mars is round' false conundrum and more with the composition and construct of matter, you know, the fibers and threads of the fabric of Life and the Cosmos themselves.

blue adept | September 4, 2019

Just to review a current issue that is relevant to us all whether we're individuals, couples, families, with or without children, young or old, male or female, of whatever demographic or complexion...

On 04/16/2007, at Virginia Tech, Seung Hui Cho, 23, goes on a shooting spree at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va., killing 32 people;

On 12/14/2012, at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza, 20, guns down 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.;

On 06/17/2015, in Charleston, Dylan Roof, 22, opens fire at a weekly Bible study at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., killing nine people;

On 12/02/2015, in San Bernardino, Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 29, open fire at a San Bernardino County Department of Public Health holiday party, killing 14 people and injuring 22 others in San Bernardino, Calif.;

On 06/12/2016, at the Pulse Nightclub shooting, Omar Mateen, 29, opens fire in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., leaving 49 dead and 53 injured;

On 10/01/2017, in Las Vegas, gunman Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500;

On 11/05/2017, in Sutherland Springs, Devin Kelley killed 26 people and wounded 20 others at First Baptist Church in Texas;

On 02/14/2018, in Parkland, Fla., Nikolas Cruz, 19, is arrested and charged with premeditated murder in the killing of 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School which also left more than a dozen wounded;

On 05/18/2018, in Santa Fe, Texas, at 7:30 a.m. on a Friday, a 17-year-old junior named Dimitrios Pagourtzis entered Santa Fe High School, in the suburbs of Houston, and proceeded to kill 10 people and injure 13 more;

On June 28, 2018, in Annapolis, Md., Jarrod W. Ramos, 38, at the Capital Gazette, he burst into the paper’s offices with a 12-gauge shotgun and killed five staffers;

On Oct. 27, 2018, in Pittsburgh, Robert Bowers, 46, a Pittsburgh truck driver with a history of posting anti-Semitic material on social media, entered the Tree of Life Synagogue in the city’s quiet Squirrel Hill neighborhood and killed 11 people and wounded six others including 4 officers;

On Nov. 7, 2018, in Thousand Oaks, a former U.S. Marine burst into the Borderline Bar and Grill in California on a night when it was jammed with dancing college students, tossed a smoke bomb into the space and proceeded to open fire killing 12 and injuring 18 including a Ventura County sheriff's deputy;

On Feb. 15, 2019, in Aurora, Ill., Gary Martin, a 45-year-old factory worker, killed five co-workers at the Henry Pratt Co. manufacturing plant in suburban Chicago during a meeting in which he was fired, including wounding 1 co-worker and the first five police officers to arrive at the scene;

On May 31, 2019, in Virginia Beach, Va., DeWayne Craddock, 40, a civil engineer for the Public Utilities Department in Virginia Beach, opened fire inside a municipal building adjacent to City Hall, killing 12 people and wounding 6 others;

On Aug. 3, 2019, Patrick Crusius, 21, from Allen, Texas, armed himself with a rifle and went on a rampage at a Walmart popular with Latino shoppers on El Paso’s eastside that left 22 dead and another 26 wounded;

On Aug. 4, 2019 Dayton, Ohio, Connor Betts, 24, killed 9, including his own sister, and injured an estimated 27 people near Ned Peppers Bar in the historic Oregon District of Dayton before being killed by responding police;

And just over this past weekend on Aug. 31, 2019, in Odessa, Texas, an as of yet unnamed man, who had called both the 911 service and the FBI beforehand, opened fire on a state trooper during a traffic stop and drove away, shooting more than 20 people and killing 7 including injuring several law enforcement officers and a 17-month-old girl in apparently random attacks in the area of Odessa and Midland.

That was just a day before Texas legislators introduced a bill rescinding several gun restrictions intended to stop &/or prevent these types of acts of gun violence.

This should NOT be the norm and we should NOT be encouraged to accept it as 'the new norm'.

This is suppose to be "the land of the free" and part of that 'freedom' is freedom from the fear of your children being shot while they're at school or out playing at the park, teens and adults being shot while they're at the the store, at the movies, at concert venues, at outdoor events, at the club, or even just the local bar/"watering hole".

This IS America...isn't it?!

blue adept | September 4, 2019

"Any problem created by man can be solved by man." (Robert Kennedy)

We allowed this problem to be created through the exploitation of our fear, insecurity and anxiety by the NRA just so they could make more money and we can fix it!

Placing protection of gun ownership above the lives of American citizens is what makes someone come across as belligerently insane and defines them as someone who should've never been allowed to own a gun in the first place.

As opposed to the insistence that we can do nothing about this/to reduce or altogether eliminate these heinous acts of violence against our citizenry and should just accept it as the new reality/unfortunate side effect of gun ownership in America, I think sound exponentially more sane than any gun nutter out there does inasmuch as I'm not advocating reticence or acceptance of the wanton murder of our men, women and children.

So what can we do about it? What laws do we need in place to stop this pestilence, this epidemic of mass shootings that has swept the nation?

It's a tough call both for all of the excuses we've heard numerous times already and those they've not yet had the opportunity to think up.

One step, I think, would be to criminalize the ownership of high-capacity firearms and gun magazines by civilian personnel (this way everyone would have the same thing, both the good guys and the criminals);

Another would be to limit the manufacture and distribution of high-capacity weaponry solely to and for military applications;

And another still would be to limit the manufacture and distribution of all civilian firearms to single/double-action firing capability;

If we can't get our legislators to forward and champion the causes and desires of their constituency, we who voted them into office (because they've sold us out in exchange for [air quotes] "campaign contributions"), then they should be voted out of office;

Ensure that everyone has access to the resources necessary to allow them to express their animosity/dislikes in a constructive manner and provide the necessary counseling required to help them to rationalize their anxieties in a positive fashion;

Outlaw racism, classism, bullying, and any and all derogatory or inflammatory commentary associated with it (we've already got laws against "hate speech" on the books) as the 1st. Amendment's right to free speech is not and was never intended to sanction the spewing of hatred and vitriol and the cultivation of anarchy (we're suppose to be trying to rectify these lesser aspects of our cultural mores/mannerisms, those crass idiocentricities (yes, 'idio', not 'ego' )of a lesser intellect, yet we've got our nation's leader engaging in all manner of slurs and slanders on several public media outlets).

Since we can't control Human emotions or to a greater extent, behavior, we need do whatever we can to limit an individual's access to the type of weaponry that would enable them to murder people en masse because I feel that, on a socio-cultural level, we all just need to recognize the worth of a life and recognize each of our value as a Human being.

Hell I don't know...It just seems that we've suffered a systemic breakdown of our moral paradigms that has proliferated and propagated over time into this atmosphere of complaisant submissiveness with overtures of fear and trepidation we're mired in today, causing us to lose our sense of self-worth which translated to life losing its' value, its' worth, for some and they started to take it for granted as society itself adopted the throw-a-way culture of our post-industrialized world when we, Humans, were never meant to be a throw-a-way life form.

Anyone else have any ideas of what corrective measures do you think we can take?

blue adept | September 4, 2019

Yes, I'm really feeling my social advocacy lately...

Shouldn't we all given the current socio-cultural-political atmosphere?!

andy.connor.e | September 5, 2019

Agreed that the right to free speech is not intended to sanction spewing of hatred. In this day and age, there really should not be any need for hatred. But i dont think it should be outlawed or illegal in some sense. You cant force behavior, and if you try what ends up happening is whatever entity is enforcing it starts to become tyrannical. This did not have good consequences in the 20th century.

SCCRENDO | September 5, 2019

@blue adept. I laugh at the irony. My granddaughter is very athletic for her age. And indeed likes dresses for the tutu effects. My daughter encourages her kids to follow their dreams. I have 2 sons and my daughter. She was by far the most athletic. Both her and her husband have done ironmen. She has done 2 full and he one. So it is an irony how “effeminate” her daughter is at this time. We all let her follow her dreams. It is however a source for family amusement.

SCCRENDO | September 5, 2019

Bigfoot may be next. And then we may find out that some study suggests the earth is flat and Mars is round
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49495145

blue adept | September 6, 2019

@andy.connor.e

Granted, while "hate speech" itself isn't outlawed there are laws against "hate crimes" and the sort of speech that encourages or "incites" violence committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability IS federally prosecutable, so I guess I'm suggesting that we make it explicitly clear that "hate speech" is illegal because of its demonstrated propensity to cause violence/criminality.

All laws act as a means of protection from behavior or activities we've deemed to be unacceptable/"criminal" in nature as well as a means to incentivize us to embody our better selves by not engaging in such illegal behaviors/activities, and while they aren't always effective in discouraging people from engaging in criminality, they do serve to provide an avenue for for relief from those among us who chose to act against their better natures and to the detriment of our societal goals and safety from harm.

So it isn't so much about 'forcing' someone to be a better Human as it is about encouraging them to be better people by letting them know that there are consequences for the behavior they incite as the only true measure of an act is its consequence.

blue adept | September 6, 2019

@SCCRENDO

So 'ballet' it is!

I also find it encouraging that your family has realized that women aren't meant to be characterized (put in a box) by a particular set of behaviors or mannerisms but are, instead, meant to have the leeway to discover themselves on their own (your family gives me hope for all of our futures...Thank you!).

While the "Loch Ness Monster" might turn out to be some form of "eel", giant or otherwise, anyone who knows anything already knows that the so-called "Bigfoot" creature is merely just a hirsute humanoid creature commonly known as a "Wookiee".

SCCRENDO | September 7, 2019

@blue adept. If you know the earth is flat despite Mars being round Bigfoot can be anything you want him or her to be. And I am sure Mitch will find the “science” to support it. Btw I have plenty of time on my hands. I missed my connection to Lisbon so I am enjoying 5 hours of relaxing in the VIP lounge at Madrid airport.

dmm1240 | September 7, 2019

@ SCCRENDO

Been there, done that. Last winter spent hours in the Madrid airport because the altimeter on the plane we were supposed to take broke. Spent an extra night in Madrid courtesy of Delta. They even refunded the price of our tickets!

SCCRENDO | September 7, 2019

@dmm. My wife booked the Cheepo flight with Norwegian Air ($400 each from Los Angeles to Lisbon.) Had to pay $160 extra for the 2 legs to get checked bags. There is no food unless you buy it. There was 1 hour 20 mins between flights. We had to go through passport control, get our bags and then walk one terminal to check in. We got there 30 mins before the flight and the gate closed 45 mins before the flight. Even if we just brought carry ons I doubt we would have made it. The lesson is that cheep is usually never better. The struggle now is trying to keep awake so we can get a good night’s sleep in Lisbon. We have an all day walking tour of Lisbon at 9 am tomorrow.

jimglas | September 7, 2019

Last minute upgrade to first class on a redeye from Kawai last Thursday on United. Best $250 I ever spend.
Slept 6 hours .....

SCCRENDO | September 7, 2019

In life you get what you pay for. This is a constant debate I have with my wife

jimglas | September 7, 2019

It wasn't worth the $2k fee when I initially booked the tickets, but the last minute firesale at the airport was a no brainer. I have had good luck a few other times in the past with last minute upgrades (Iceland upgrade for $50 comes to mind), but much less often recently with more fully booked flights.

rxlawdude | September 7, 2019

Friends don't let friends fly Norwegian Air.

SCCRENDO | September 7, 2019

@rxlawdude. Agreed. Hence my warning now. Where were you guys when my wife booked. Such friends.

Tesla2018 | September 7, 2019

My father used to work for an airline so I could fly coach for $7 and first class for $14 up until I was 21. At the time the drinking age was 18, so I paid the extra $7 since they gave you real food and all the free drinks you wanted. I drank more than $7 worth of liquor so they didnt make any money off of me! Now I pay regular prices and get a bag of peanuts and a half can of soda. Didnt realize how good I used to have it.

blue adept | September 7, 2019

@SCCRENDO

Sucks to be Mitch and you have my sympathy...

May the Force be with you!

rxlawdude | September 8, 2019

@Tesla2018, in the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, PSA would fly you from LAX to SAN for $6.80 each way, tax included. Or $12 from LAX to the bay area.

No employee connection needed. :-)

jimglas | September 8, 2019

PSA
We called it Poor Student Airline

andy.connor.e | September 9, 2019

@blue

Its not long until we are like European nations where its illegal to be offensive. Then "offensive" is basically your opinion and theres no proof because you can just claim it whenever. Its one small step at a time. Before you know it you'll be arrested for criticism.

rxlawdude | September 9, 2019

@andy, you and I probably agree on the "PC" movement going overboard. As a professor instructing graduate/professional students, it's clear millennials are more sensitive. But that also comes with being more accepting of others.

Bill Maher kind of articulates the sweet spot between PC and a-holism.

andy.connor.e | September 9, 2019

I agree, but there is a very thick line between being accepting, and forcing me to accept you or even forcing speech.

Pages