Court nixes award against Philip Morris

[NCclimber 0]

Didn't you know it is perfectly acceptable to apply racist labels to African-Americans who fail to overtly act in the best interests of African-Americans?

Black tyrant...
house slave...
"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value,"

High tech lynching, indeed.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Reasons to disagree with it - punitive damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor - to make an example out of him and discourage future similar conduct in the future.

Is there a reason for punitive damages to be not designed in the way, so they would not benefit a plaintiff while punushing a defendant? Like a fine?

Quote

Why I agree - I do not believe the jury should be making any decision based upon the damages suffered by people that are not asking for it.

Yes, that's why it is good news.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

you know, that's pretty offensive bullshit you're posting there.

It's quite possible to believe that Thomas is an idiot rather than a black idiot. He was an intellectual lightweight when he was confirmed, and he's done little since then to change my mind on it. I've read a few of his 1-8 minority decisions and I think I'd be happier if he stuck to being Scalia's lapdog.

Over the past few decades there have been some nominees that really surprised their President with some independent thinking. Thomas isn't one of them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How's that Phillip Morris stock doing?

quite good. With the legal environment improving, Altria has finally been able to go ahead and spin off Kraft without being accused of hiding assets from plaintiffs. Every sharehold gets .7 shares of Kraft per share.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Didn't you know it is perfectly acceptable to apply racist labels to African-Americans who fail to overtly act in the best interests of African-Americans?

This is my problem - nobody can act in the best interests of African-Americans. What is in the best interests? Who decides what is in the best interests?
Well, nobody knows what is best for African-Americans because there is no such thing.

This determination of "what is best" has traditionally been made by white guys - either the rich, educated or the political. Presently, this determinations is being made by the self-anointed, who believe that they know what is best for all blacks. The difference is that this is not limited to white guys anymore. This determination is being made by others who are in power, regardless of race.

Well, nobody can determine what is "best" for any group, because groups are made up of individuals. In every group, someone like Clarence Thomas will come along and say, "WTF? Who are you?"

Clarence Thomas is in a position where he personally has nothing to gain or lose. He is at the top of his profession in a job he can't lose. He has the ability to do what he thinks is right.

And therein lies the problem - Thomas does what HE THINKS is right, and not what OTHERS think is right. Indeed, who out there can tell somebody, "I know what is best for you" without having an inherent disregard for that person or group's mentality?

Clarence Thomas is a glaring example of somebody who did it his own way. Why is he such a threat? My belief is because if more people were like Clarence Thomas, then the self-anointed would lose their power over those whom they believe should have no right to control their individual destinies. Because he is a threat, he must be destroyed, and the easiest way to do so is to accuse him of being a mere token or toadie.

Face it, people - the hatred and derision spewed towards Clarence Thomas is the direct result of him being black. If he was white, he would merely be viewed as wrong, a la Scalia. Since he is black, however, he cannot merely be wrong. He must be a slave to his "master."

There is simply no other explanation for the unequal treatment of Clarence Thomas than the inherently discriminatory and condescending attitude towards blacks. The only way that blacks are acceptable to the self-anointed is if they are kept in line to think the way that they are told to think.

Nobody who views blacks as equal would state that Clarence Thomas is a slave and Scalia is the master. People would all analyze his opinions and writings independently and without reference to race. Plenty do.

But plenty do not. And when they focus more on his skin color that on the content of his writings and other ideas, the true motivation comes out.

Treat the guy as an equal, people. If you don't, you ARE what you claim to despise. Obviously, you all have no problems with what Thomas wrote, otherwise you would have commented upon what he wrote instead of commenting on your view of an alleged subservient relationship.

So, next challenge - read the fucking opinion and comment upon it without letting your views of racial roles interfere with your thinking.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Edited because I got deservedly flamed. I apologize for my tone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

wow - so when I believe that Rice is a lapdog to Bush Jr the way Thomas is a lapdog to Bush Sr., it's because I'm racist Whitey trying to keep the blacks down. Even Rummie eventually strayed, which is why he was 'resigned' out of office. When did Thomas ever go against the White House line?

Moderators - if lawrocket isn't cited for these clear PAs, it should be fair game for retaliation. Because he's showing very little critical thinking with his thesis.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yeah, nobody who is an independent thinker would go against 8 other people. I'm really surprised and taken aback, that Thomas is not enough of an independent thinker to succumb to peer pressure and do what everyone else is doing.

That could be true - save the situation more typically was that the White House wanted something and 8 of 9 justices says that's isn't kosher.

[Andy9o8 0]

You're right, Jerry. Insinuations are for pussies.

I hereby openly and expressly declare that I think Clarence Thomas is a fucking fascist pig. I hate him equally with Scalia. They're both fascist pigs. And I hated Rehnquist, too. Good that he's dead.

By the way, have you ever heard the probing, insightful questions Thomas poses to counsel during oral arguments? They usually sound like this:


<>


That's why I, personally, agree that Thomas is an intellectual lightweight. There's no there, there. Compared with some of the genuinely brilliant minds that are or have been on the Supreme Court, Thomas isn't even qualified to be a justice of the peace. So he signs his name to opinions authored by his law clerks who actually are brilliant young lawyers in their own right. Big fucking deal.

So that's what I think, and why. No hidden agenda, certainly not one ascribed to race. Just stone-cold honesty.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Moderators - if lawrocket isn't cited for these clear PAs, it should be fair game for retaliation. Because he's showing very little critical thinking with his thesis.

Talk about critical thinking - "mods, please ban JC because he's not showing what I personally would call critical thinking"

I think it's a fair route to take on yours and Lucky's original comments. So, answer the easy question, why, in your books, is Thomas considered on Scalia's leash instead of the other way around?

I know Lucky's answer, he's easy - color doesn't matter, nor does opinion, only which party appointed him. What about your position?

Does Scalia always publish his positions first? Is this all some mistake of some procedure to publish alphabetically?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Now that's a GREAT answer.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Moderators - if lawrocket isn't cited for these clear PAs, it should be fair game for retaliation. Because he's showing very little critical thinking with his thesis.

Talk about critical thinking - "mods, please ban JC because he's not showing what I personally would call critical thinking"

I didn't ask for him to be banned. But calling me a bigot is an attack. Creating strawmen with the word "slave" is offensive. Eventually I'm going to say something tactless in return.

My opinion is very clear - he is underqualified to be there. He is a lackey of the Bush Administrations. Since lawrocket asserts that this is due to my racist thinking, he can counter my claims. Or shut the fuck up.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

wow - so when I believe that Rice is a lapdog to Bush Jr the way Thomas is a lapdog to Bush Sr., it's because I'm racist Whitey trying to keep the blacks down.

While I have no direct opinion on the issue - I can tell when goal posts are being moved. Of course Condi is a lapdog to Bush. He's her boss. She's paid to be a lapdog to Bush. It's her entire job description.

Lawrockets comments came as a reply to suggestions that Thomas is a puppet to Scalia (not Bush). Scalia is not Thomas's boss, its silly to draw a parallel between the two.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

When did Thomas ever go against the White House line?

How about when he wrote a separate concurrence that struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922, signed into law by Bush, Sr., in the case United Stats v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)? http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html

How about US v. Salerno, (1992) where he smacked down the Bush, Sr. Administration (every time the US is a party, it is the Solicitor General - a presidential appointee, who takes the case). http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-872.ZO.html

United States v. R.L.C., where he against disagreed with the Bush Administration's position. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1577.ZC2.html

How about this case where he voted and submitted a concurring/dissenting opinion which overturned his good buddy, George Bush, Sr's law providing forfeiture of private property for drug convicts. United States James Daniel Good Real Property (92-1180), 510 U.S. 43 (1993). http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1180.ZO.html#FN1

Here's a quote from that case:

Quote

The extent of the Government's financial stake in drug forfeitureis apparent from a 1990 memo, in which the Attorney General urged United States Attorneys to increase the volume of forfeitures in order to meet the Department of Justice's annual budget target:

"We must significantly increase production to reach our budget target.

". . . Failure to achieve the $470 million projection would expose the Department's forfeiture program to criticism and undermine confidence in our budget projections. Every effort must be made to increase forfeiture income during the remaining three months of [fiscal year] 1990." Executive Office for United States Attorneys, U. S. Dept. of Justice, 38 United States Attorney's Bulletin 180 (1990).

---

In fifteen minutes I found examples countering what you said. Now, do you want to keep goign down a path where your subjective feelings are countered by objectively verifiable evidence?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

And there, from Andy, I see an argument made against Clarence Thomas that neither talks about his race or insinuates it, does not call him a lapdog or toadie of Scalia, and instead simply states an opinion based upon the content of what he does.

Andy, thank you for demonstrating a legitimate argument. You think he's a fascist pig, but you at least have the insight to put him on an equal footing with Scalia.

Quote

No hidden agenda, certainly not one ascribed to race. Just stone-cold honesty.

Exactly. I don't have problems with that. I do have problems with ascribing him as a fucking toady - the same way the other side of the intellectual spectrum did it with Marshall-Brennan.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I didn't ask for him to be banned. But calling me a bigot is an attack. Creating strawmen with the word "slave" is offensive.

I didn't call you a bigot. I told you what the connotation of the word "master" is, and what my interpretation of the statement was. You used the word "master." I repeated it and asked you to confirm or deny my assumptions.

I have no qualms if you say something tactless. I've only got one feeling, as you can't hurt that.

Quote

My opinion is very clear - he is underqualified to be there. He is a lackey of the Bush Administrations.

That is NOT what you said before. You said that "occasionally Thomas strays from his master" after a quoting a statement on Scalia.

So, you have explained that you think that he is not intellectually up to par. That is a reasonable opinion. You think he is a lackey of the Bush Administration. I disagree and cited evidence showing the reasons for my disagreement.

But, now that you have clarified what you meant by your statement, I will operate with the knowledge that your reference to "master" was merely an inadvertent choice of words.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But, now that you have clarified what you meant by your statement, I will operate with the knowledge that your reference to "master" was merely an inadvertent choice of words.

master is a binary with many other words - slave as you pointed out, lapdog as I prefer, apprentice, subordinate...