Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Supreme Court Allows Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    I still don't get the legal case being made here, on what grounds could it win?
    Emotion.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Emotion.
      So what kind of argument is going to be advanced in court?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        So what kind of argument is going to be advanced in court?
        You seem to be under the mistaken impression that liberals and activist judges need a legally valid case in order to "make a statement" about one of their pet issues.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          You seem to be under the mistaken impression that liberals and activist judges need a legally valid case in order to "make a statement" about one of their pet issues.
          Well no, if they're going to fight this in court they're going to be making a case on some basis. In the OP of this thread there was talk about the language being used by Remington in their ad campaigns, but again, what law would we be referring to here.

          Misleading advertisement?

          If there isn't a law regarding this, then why the worry about whether this would succeed or not in court.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            Well no, if they're going to fight this in court they're going to be making a case on some basis. In the OP of this thread there was talk about the language being used by Remington in their ad campaigns, but again, what law would we be referring to here.
            I suspect they'll be going for the gross negligence angle that someone referred to earlier.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              I suspect they'll be going for the gross negligence angle that someone referred to earlier.
              In that case, I don't see it standing any chance. It'll run its course.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                So what kind of argument is going to be advanced in court?
                Probably something along the lines....
                the gun manufacture knew their product was dangerous and even deadly, they marketed it as such, they specifically emphasized the military equivalence in killing opponents, blah blah blah...

                Oh, and they didn't include warning stickers all over the weapon like ladder manufacturers do.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  Is it even particularly common for the Supreme Court to outright dismiss a lawsuit? Because remembering, this isn't a ruling as to whether they should win or lose the lawsuit, it's a requested ruling that the lawsuit not be allowed to occur at all. Barring extreme circumstances, I would think that the SCOTUS outright rejecting a lawsuit before arguments are made to be improper.
                  It makes sense that they simply don't want to make an exception for this one or any other one, lest they be flooded with ten thousands of 'my accuser's lawsuit is obviously ungrounded, throw it out'.
                  Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                    It makes sense that they simply don't want to make an exception for this one or any other one, lest they be flooded with ten thousands of 'my accuser's lawsuit is obviously ungrounded, throw it out'.
                    It's the same with the abortion debate -- neither side wants to conceded the least little bit because it's the dreaded slippery slope...
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      It's the same with the abortion debate -- neither side wants to conceded the least little bit because it's the dreaded slippery slope...
                      Moral neutrality doesn't work in the public square (or in any individual for that matter). De facto, authorities have a certain vision of morality that they rule accordingly to enforce. This vision has corollaries and entailments, aka slippery slopes.
                      Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Constitutions, whether written or unwritten, are moral visions. This is why a morally neutral society can't exist. It's also why a morally neutral judge can't exist, he has to rule on some moral vision, whether it be his own or the currently dominant constitutional one.

                        This has implications, most of which aren't very nice. At the very top, moral visions that are not too different can reach a compromise, but those that are incompatible result in a culture war. And if you don't take some un-nice, un-'why can't we all just get along' paths, you lose the war.
                        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                        16 responses
                        121 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post One Bad Pig  
                        Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                        53 responses
                        321 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                        25 responses
                        111 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                        33 responses
                        196 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Roy
                        by Roy
                         
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                        84 responses
                        360 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post JimL
                        by JimL
                         
                        Working...
                        X