I agree with your sentiments regarding the judiciary and both parties' attacks on its legitimacy are terrible.Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
Partially reasonable points, but ... They DID participate. They used backchannels and media to warn Obama that Garland was an unacceptable nominee. Obama forced their hand and they played those cards. (Which is an example of EXACTLY why the Constitutional compromise language did not force Senate votes - it intentionally left the political checks and balances "in play." You think the Founders did not know HOW to force a vote if everyone agreed THT was goal?)
Again - like the Garland vote (and history shows multiple SCOTUS nominees withdrawn before a Senate vote was had/forced, so the shock and surprise requires ignoring history) a Senate Majority Leader voting against impeachment of a President of his own party (even one they might hate, and might have publicly chastised, and might have publicly opposed on multiple policy issues) - is a POLITICAL act, and not really much of a surprise. Yes, the possessors of hand-held propaganda/radicalization devices can be ginned up into frenzied hate over a political act, but among the political hoi-poloi, a party so weak it needs the opposing Senate Majority Leader to vote WITH them might want to look internally for the source of their political problems.
The Democratic Party was handed a tremendous opportunity after Obama was elected. They misread their strength and tried to use unprecedented support from GOP voters to enact (to quote a guy) "radical fundamental" change. Instead of a presidency that could have healed the nation's worst scar a little, what we got turned into a hate campaign that spread and has lasted to this day. And lies that the Court will just support anything Trump wants is an attack on democracy and the fabric of the society and social contracts we have always lived by. It ignores our ACTUAL history and is simply unwise.
Losing with grace was something even Nixon understood.
But defending McConnell not voting to convict Trump on the impeachment because Trump was in his own party is weak, weak sauce. Party over country, eh? Nah, that's what has led to so much damage to the nation, and the warnings against it are as old as the Republic:
it is regrettable, but as you say, is as old as the Constitution itself - and is not limited to the GOP - mostly because (from the beginning) there is usually disagreement over what is best for the country. If someone doesn’t think a policy is best, they don’t see their vote as “party over country.”
@hooky what am i missing. i only did a two second review. that's not the law. it's that the manufacturers have immunity from liability absent reckless sale, manufacture or marketing.
so if hooky goes and buys a gun and shoots his neighbor and kills him the neighbor doesn't have a case against the manufacturer. now if the gun was defective and tantamount to a products case and blew up in hooky's hand he could sue the manufacturer. the cases that serve as the predicate for this were the ancillary merchandising practices type case: marketing AR's in combat style to teens, glorifying shit the gun shouldn't be used for, etc.
so as i see it the law really has just remained the same and i don't think it's a bad law. i could be missing germane info and if so please share. but it's not a broad allowing people killed by an adult shooting a 9mm to be able to go after smith & wesson etc. it just demands responsible marketing etc.
@hooky what am i missing. i only did a two second review. that's not the law. it's that the manufacturers have immunity from liability absent reckless sale, manufacture or marketing.
so if hooky goes and buys a gun and shoots his neighbor and kills him the neighbor doesn't have a case against the manufacturer. now if the gun was defective and tantamount to a products case and blew up in hooky's hand he could sue the manufacturer. the cases that serve as the predicate for this were the ancillary merchandising practices type case: marketing AR's in combat style to teens, glorifying shit the gun shouldn't be used for, etc.
so as i see it the law really has just remained the same and i don't think it's a bad law. i could be missing germane info and if so please share. but it's not a broad allowing people killed by an adult shooting a 9mm to be able to go after smith & wesson etc. it just demands responsible marketing etc.
Manufacturers are civilly liable if their products are used to commit crimes. The simple fact that they manufacture firearms is enough to be sued for liability, regardless of their actions. If I shoot my neighbor, justified or not, the gun manufacturer can be held liable for my actions with their product.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S7196
Section 2 also declares that a violation of the new article that results in harm to the public is a public nuisance regardless of whether the gun industry member acted for the purpose of causing harm to the public (§ 898-c 1 and 2).
Given the ease with which legal firearms flow into the ille- gal market -- in spite of stringent state and local restrictions -- and given the specific harm illegal firearm violence causes certain New Yorkers, those responsible for the sale, manufacture, importing, or marketing of firearms should be held liable for the public nuisance caused by such activities.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Manufacturers are civilly liable if their products are used to commit crimes. The simple fact that they manufacture firearms is enough to be sued for liability, regardless of their actions.
if that's true that's no good. you going to sue bmw for driving drunk. for intentionally mowing someone down
What policy was advanced by McConnell's failure to vote to convict Trump in the Senate?I agree with your sentiments regarding the judiciary and both parties' attacks on its legitimacy are terrible.Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
Partially reasonable points, but ... They DID participate. They used backchannels and media to warn Obama that Garland was an unacceptable nominee. Obama forced their hand and they played those cards. (Which is an example of EXACTLY why the Constitutional compromise language did not force Senate votes - it intentionally left the political checks and balances "in play." You think the Founders did not know HOW to force a vote if everyone agreed THT was goal?)
Again - like the Garland vote (and history shows multiple SCOTUS nominees withdrawn before a Senate vote was had/forced, so the shock and surprise requires ignoring history) a Senate Majority Leader voting against impeachment of a President of his own party (even one they might hate, and might have publicly chastised, and might have publicly opposed on multiple policy issues) - is a POLITICAL act, and not really much of a surprise. Yes, the possessors of hand-held propaganda/radicalization devices can be ginned up into frenzied hate over a political act, but among the political hoi-poloi, a party so weak it needs the opposing Senate Majority Leader to vote WITH them might want to look internally for the source of their political problems.
The Democratic Party was handed a tremendous opportunity after Obama was elected. They misread their strength and tried to use unprecedented support from GOP voters to enact (to quote a guy) "radical fundamental" change. Instead of a presidency that could have healed the nation's worst scar a little, what we got turned into a hate campaign that spread and has lasted to this day. And lies that the Court will just support anything Trump wants is an attack on democracy and the fabric of the society and social contracts we have always lived by. It ignores our ACTUAL history and is simply unwise.
Losing with grace was something even Nixon understood.
But defending McConnell not voting to convict Trump on the impeachment because Trump was in his own party is weak, weak sauce. Party over country, eh? Nah, that's what has led to so much damage to the nation, and the warnings against it are as old as the Republic:
it is regrettable, but as you say, is as old as the Constitution itself - and is not limited to the GOP - mostly because (from the beginning) there is usually disagreement over what is best for the country. If someone doesn’t think a policy is best, they don’t see their vote as “party over country.”
Manufacturers are civilly liable if their products are used to commit crimes. The simple fact that they manufacture firearms is enough to be sued for liability, regardless of their actions.
if that's true that's no good. you going to sue bmw for driving drunk. for intentionally mowing someone down
In terms of policy, there's a huge difference. Not sure exactly how the courts might judicially interpret it, but it's a matter of the primary functions the product is designed for. A car is designed to transport people. It is not designed to cause harm. Causing harm is an unfortunate side effect. Guns are designed to cause harm. It's not a side effect at all. It's a product working as intended.
It's not a perfect analogy, but you can imagine how a law against paraphernalia might ban a bong, but maybe couldn't be applied against apples, just because some enterprising frat boy cored one out and used it to create a makeshift pipe.
@goat you’re absolutely correct on the distinction re intended purpose. But you’re still using a LEGAL consumer product to commit a crime. If a guy uses his Range Rover to run over people at a parade you shouldn’t be able to sue Land Rover. Why does the intended use matter. There’s no way a gun manufacturer can predict who will use their gun for a crime in the same way there’s no way Land Rover can. That’s why the logic has dictated finding liability in merchandising practices via marketing etc
if this is the case for liability, even ignoring foreseeability etc, you might as well skip the pretense and declare guns illegal.
@goat you’re absolutely correct on the distinction re intended purpose. But you’re still using a LEGAL consumer product to commit a crime. If a guy uses his Range Rover to run over people at a parade you shouldn’t be able to sue Land Rover. Why does the intended use matter. There’s no way a gun manufacturer can predict who will use their gun for a crime in the same way there’s no way Land Rover can. That’s why the logic has dictated finding liability in merchandising practices via marketing etc
if this is the case for liability, even ignoring foreseeability etc, you might as well skip the pretense and declare guns illegal.
As a Platonic ideal, I agree with you. But tobacco. Dram shop laws. Chemicals. Heavy machinery. When products are known to have inherent dangers, they are often treated differently. It's not like guns are unique in facing this type of scrutiny.
tobacco was the same way not like this. It was largely marketing.
dram shop the over served doesn’t have a case. The injured party can sue the bar if they can prove that the bar by clear and convincing evidence served a visibly intoxicated person.
heavy machinery is only if there is a defect and it’s a product case. If I run you over in a big truck the injured party can’t sue John Deere.
none of your examples are anything like the gun manufacturer being liable for a criminal shooting someone
tobacco was the same way not like this. It was largely marketing.
dram shop the over served doesn’t have a case. The injured party can sue the bar if they can prove that the bar by clear and convincing evidence served a visibly intoxicated person.
heavy machinery is only if there is a defect and it’s a product case. If I run you over in a big truck the injured party can’t sue John Deere.
none of your examples are anything like the gun manufacturer being liable for a criminal shooting someone
I'm not trying to find an analogy. I'm just saying that we, as a matter of policy, do recognize that certain products are inherently dangerous, and treat them and the people doing business in them differently.
@goat but we don't without something more. in the case of the dram shop evidence that a mistake was made a person was overserved. in teh case of tobacco that they targeted kids lied about the health risk effects of their product etc. there's something more. in the instant case involving a gun the something more is missing. and without it youve put gun manufacturers in an untenable position. they are liable without anything more. just the product. and that's absurd.
now if we want to do that as a matter of policy. i don't care. legislate it. amend the const. whatever. but it shouldn't be a product of tort law
@goat but we don't without something more. in the case of the dram shop evidence that a mistake was made a person was overserved. in teh case of tobacco that they targeted kids lied about the health risk effects of their product etc. there's something more. in the instant case involving a gun the something more is missing. and without it youve put gun manufacturers in an untenable position. they are liable without anything more. just the product. and that's absurd.
now if we want to do that as a matter of policy. i don't care. legislate it. amend the const. whatever. but it shouldn't be a product of tort law
I must be mistaken. I thought this was legislated.
@goat and maybe that’s the end run legislation. Because with laws ny has after a couple of big hits insurance and reinsurers will say see ya.
the s.ct should have heard it
Someone took Products Liability!tobacco was the same way not like this. It was largely marketing.
dram shop the over served doesn’t have a case. The injured party can sue the bar if they can prove that the bar by clear and convincing evidence served a visibly intoxicated person.
heavy machinery is only if there is a defect and it’s a product case. If I run you over in a big truck the injured party can’t sue John Deere.
none of your examples are anything like the gun manufacturer being liable for a criminal shooting someone
@bradstevens ford explorers, jags instant acceleration, punch presses on and on and on lol