Trump fined nearly $1M for ‘revenge’ lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

[essentialsaltes]

I guess Trump heard that Hilary was attacking Southern California and has decided to revive this lawsuit.

Not content with a tropical storm, there was a 5+ earthquake outside Ojai.

 

[wing2000]

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

No reasonable lawyer would have filed it.

And no reasonable judge would have come to a different conclusion. It does not MATTER who nominated the judge.

Political revenge is no basis for a law suit.

 

[stevil]

No...either one would demand a recusal - in a normal world.

LOL, judges are appointed by the ruling political party at the time of the vacancy. That doesn't mean they own them or that the judge is going to give favours.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I guess Trump heard that Hilary was attacking Southern California and has decided to revive this lawsuit.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... conservative humor:

On The Big Weekend Show, Fox News host Kennedy blamed Biden for letting Hurricane Hilary into the country:

“The wrath of tropical storm Hillary. 42 million desperate souls in the path of the storm which made landfall several hours ago, but they let it right into the country because it’s Biden’s America.”

 

[Arcangl86]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... conservative humor:

On The Big Weekend Show, Fox News host Kennedy blamed Biden for letting Hurricane Hilary into the country:

I mean of course it's his fault. He was too feckless or confused or... to order the Space Force to stop the hurricane by nuking it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I remember a time when conservatives were gung ho for tort reform. But that was before they chose a champion whos notorious for abuse of the legal system as a business strategy.

I think tort reform is one of those topics where some folks claimed they wanted reform, but a lot of that sentiment was stirred up by ginned up stories like the, now infamous, "Lady sues McDonalds over hot coffee" story that was wildly misrepresented in which some large corporations basically took an inaccurate version of a story, and ran with it in order to trick people into voting for something that eliminates plaintiffs avenues for legitimate recourse.

...and I do actually find it concerning that civil courts are basically being abused in such a way for people cram things through (being that there's a lower standard for evidence) that they couldn't have won otherwise.

Now we have another ugly facet that's crept up. Governors promising cash rewards for people who can successfully win a civil suit against an entity they don't like in order to compensate for the fact that they get the thing they want at the ballot box or within the confines of a real legal challenge.

Two notable recent examples would be Gov's Abbott of Texas and Newsom of Cali.

Both courtesy of the NY Times:
"Texas promises successful plaintiffs “not less than $10,000 for each abortion” they successfully sue over, as well as reimbursement for their legal expenses."

"Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation that would provide a minimum award to residents who successfully sue gun makers"


I think that's setting up for a really bad incentive structure with regards to how courts are used. In essence, using tax payer money to lure in people with their sights set on fast/easy gain, and using them as pawns to "sue the people I don't like out of business because I know I can't legally shut them down".

These kinds of underhanded tit-for-tat approaches are the ones that have a tendency to go off the rails.

Fast-forward 10 years, I don't want to be in a society where we have things like
"Gov ABC doesn't like marijuana, but knows that they can't legally challenge the outcome of ballot measure that passed in their state and win, so instead dangles the carrot of a cash reward for anyone who can win a civil case against a dispensary, that way they'll all have to eventually shut down and I'll get what I want"

or

"We made a thing illegal in this state, but that state next to us is allowing it...so let's encourage people in our state to file a bunch of class action lawsuits against the industry in their state so they'll have to close up shop since they won't be able to keep up with the lawyer fees"


All of this isn't to say that there aren't some frivolous lawsuits that occur, and that we shouldn't be trying to mitigate some of that. But I think a lot of attempts at "tort reform" (in a blanket sense) are far too broad and not nearly granular enough and leaves consumers with the short end of the stick on that deal.

 

[durangodawood]

I think tort reform is one of those topics where some folks claimed they wanted reform, but a lot of that sentiment was stirred up by ginned up stories like the, now infamous, "Lady sues McDonalds over hot coffee" story that was wildly misrepresented in which some large corporations basically took an inaccurate version of a story, and ran with it in order to trick people into voting for something that eliminates plaintiffs avenues for legitimate recourse.

...and I do actually find it concerning that civil courts are basically being abused in such a way for people cram things through (being that there's a lower standard for evidence) that they couldn't have won otherwise.

Now we have another ugly facet that's crept up. Governors promising cash rewards for people who can successfully win a civil suit against an entity they don't like in order to compensate for the fact that they get the thing they want at the ballot box or within the confines of a real legal challenge.

Two notable recent examples would be Gov's Abbott of Texas and Newsom of Cali.

Both courtesy of the NY Times:
"Texas promises successful plaintiffs “not less than $10,000 for each abortion” they successfully sue over, as well as reimbursement for their legal expenses."

"Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation that would provide a minimum award to residents who successfully sue gun makers"


I think that's setting up for a really bad incentive structure with regards to how courts are used. In essence, using tax payer money to lure in people with their sights set on fast/easy gain, and using them as pawns to "sue the people I don't like out of business because I know I can't legally shut them down".

These kinds of underhanded tit-for-tat approaches are the ones that have a tendency to go off the rails.

Fast-forward 10 years, I don't want to be in a society where we have things like
"Gov ABC doesn't like marijuana, but knows that they can't legally challenge the outcome of ballot measure that passed in their state and win, so instead dangles the carrot of a cash reward for anyone who can win a civil case against a dispensary, that way they'll all have to eventually shut down and I'll get what I want"

or

"We made a thing illegal in this state, but that state next to us is allowing it...so let's encourage people in our state to file a bunch of class action lawsuits against the industry in their state so they'll have to close up shop since they won't be able to keep up with the lawyer fees"


All of this isn't to say that there aren't some frivolous lawsuits that occur, and that we shouldn't be trying to mitigate some of that. But I think a lot of attempts at "tort reform" (in a blanket sense) are far too broad and not nearly granular enough and leaves consumers with the short end of the stick on that deal.

Yeah I did disagree pretty strongly with that tactic when TX inaugurated it. I thought CA proposing it might have been for the ultimate purpose of getting all "sides" on board with a scotus ruling against it, now that we can see how it gores everybody's ox.

That would be my preferred outcome. I dont trust the states, including "blue" states, using this tactic/power at their own discretion.

I cant say off the top of my head why this IS unconstitutional. But I hope it is.

 

[SimplyMe]

Yeah I did disagree pretty strongly with that tactic when TX inaugurated it. I thought CA proposing it might have been for the ultimate purpose of getting all "sides" on board with a scotus ruling against it, now that we can see how it gores everybody's ox.

That would be my preferred outcome. I dont trust the states, including "blue" states, using this tactic/power at their own discretion.

I cant say off the top of my head why this IS unconstitutional. But I hope it is.

Instead, the courts overruled the California law in such a narrow way that it did not overturn the Texas abortion law.

 

[SimplyMe]

This judge was NOMINATED by President Bill Clinton, and the Defendant was Hillary Clinton (among others).
He should have recused himself, regardless of outcome. He is not impartial.

I guess the judge in the Trump documents case should recuse herself, since she was nominated by Pres. Trump? Of course, with her, there is also the fact that she made a very pro-Trump ruling, one not based on the law, and was literally chastized by an appeals court (with a Trump appointed majority making the ruling) when it was overturned. So there might be a bit more evidence of bias in her case.

 

[durangodawood]

Instead, the courts overruled the California law in such a narrow way that it did not overturn the Texas abortion law.

I do get how certain courts would "find" a way.

 

[durangodawood]

No...either one would demand a recusal - in a normal world.

Nomination alone isnt a relationship.

 

[wing2000]

I mean of course it's his fault. He was too feckless or confused or... to order the Space Force to stop the hurricane by nuking it.

...and he didn't even deploy his Sharpie!

 

[Pommer]

I mean of course it's his fault. He was too feckless or confused or... to order the Space Force to stop the hurricane by nuking it.

Or using the “[[[______]]] Space Laser” on it!?

 

[Pommer]

Yeah I did disagree pretty strongly with that tactic when TX inaugurated it. I thought CA proposing it might have been for the ultimate purpose of getting all "sides" on board with a scotus ruling against it, now that we can see how it gores everybody's ox.

That would be my preferred outcome. I dont trust the states, including "blue" states, using this tactic/power at their own discretion.

I cant say off the top of my head why this IS unconstitutional. But I hope it is.

The tactic of using the Courts to “fight-the-good-fight” places an onerous burden on the court-systems throughout the land and will inevitably lead to corruption of the judiciaries of each place where they have become the places where the “fight is fought”.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That would be my preferred outcome. I dont trust the states, including "blue" states, using this tactic/power at their own discretion.

It creates a problematic cycle. Using tax payer money to pay "bounties" on businesses the "in-power" party doesn't like (even if they're in another state) creates a legal mess

I cant say off the top of my head why this IS unconstitutional. But I hope it is.

I'd have to dig around, but if there were a case to be made, I would think it would be due to the fact that the part I mentioned above about these types of things crossing state lines may be where it could be found unconstitutional.

Typically, these kinds of suits have to be filed in the state where the defendant resides. Meaning, while Texas and California can waste their own money by trying to sue abortion providers and gun manufacturers in their home states, once it crosses state lines, you're tying up a court's time and taxpayer dollars in a completely different state.

It's essentially tantamount to the governor of one state offering cash rewards to people who waste another state's money and disrupt their judicial system. And in those scenarios, the biggest states with the biggest budgets have a distinct advantage should a "battle of attrition" occur (which is likely why Texas and California were the first two to try it)

 

[SimplyMe]

It creates a problematic cycle. Using tax payer money to pay "bounties" on businesses the "in-power" party doesn't like (even if they're in another state) creates a legal mess

I'd have to dig around, but if there were a case to be made, I would think it would be due to the fact that the part I mentioned above about these types of things crossing state lines may be where it could be found unconstitutional.

Typically, these kinds of suits have to be filed in the state where the defendant resides. Meaning, while Texas and California can waste their own money by trying to sue abortion providers and gun manufacturers in their home states, once it crosses state lines, you're tying up a court's time and taxpayer dollars in a completely different state.

It's essentially tantamount to the governor of one state offering cash rewards to people who waste another state's money and disrupt their judicial system. And in those scenarios, the biggest states with the biggest budgets have a distinct advantage should a "battle of attrition" occur (which is likely why Texas and California were the first two to try it)

I'm more cynical than that, these types of laws are end run around the US Constitution by states, in an attempt to outlaw a Constitutionally protected right (which abortion was when the Texas law was passed) without actually having a "state law" prohibiting it. This idea should never have survived the first Supreme Court ruling of the Texas law -- but the court allowed it because the agreed with the idea of ending abortion so found a technical ruling to rule in favor of killing abortion rights.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm more cynical than that, these types of laws are end run around the US Constitution by states, in an attempt to outlaw a Constitutionally protected right (which abortion was when the Texas law was passed) without actually having a "state law" prohibiting it. This idea should never have survived the first Supreme Court ruling of the Texas law -- but the court allowed it because the agreed with the idea of ending abortion so found a technical ruling to rule in favor of killing abortion rights.

While Texas was the first to start trying to offer "cash bounties" for these types of things (which represents a major escalation in the pattern), the attempts to facilitate the suing of gun manufacturers in other states for what people do with their product has predated that by quite a bit.

No matter how you slice it, it's dirty politics.

We're just seeing the most recent iteration of it.

 

[SimplyMe]

While Texas was the first to start trying to offer "cash bounties" for these types of things (which represents a major escalation in the pattern), the attempts to facilitate the suing of gun manufacturers in other states for what people do with their product has predated that by quite a bit.

No matter how you slice it, it's dirty politics.

We're just seeing the most recent iteration of it.

And, unless I missed something, all the ones aimed at gun manufacturers have been struck down by the courts.

 

[Pommer]

LOL, judges are appointed by the ruling political party at the time of the vacancy. That doesn't mean they own them or that the judge is going to give favours.

The conservative electorate has never really dealt with their perspective issues that their views (seem to be) are:
“Conservative Justices are people who are Conservative and who will rule according to what constitutes ‘ ‘Conservatism’ right now”.

As opposed to being just someone who rules based on conservative principles that anyone can know because, being “principles”, they won’t change with the political-winds.

This is important when conservative justices rule according to what the law is and the conservative hoi polloi get their noses out of joint because legal reality is made in the courts.

 

[rjs330]

Trump fined $1M for bogus lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

In a scathing ruling, a federal judge in Florida on Thursday ordered Donald J. Trump and one of his lawyers together to pay nearly a million dollars in sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit against nearly three dozen of Mr. Trump’s perceived political enemies, including Hillary Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey.

“This case should never have been brought,” U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in a 46-page ruling. “Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.” While Mr. Trump has often blamed his lawyers for his problems, the judge, in his ruling on Thursday, addressed Mr. Trump’s history of using the courts as a cudgel, going back decades in his business career.

“Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” Judge Middlebrooks wrote. “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions. Mr. Trump’s claims were “a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,” the judge wrote, adding, “This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”

Oddly enough, Fox News has not covered this story.

The guys like the old Timex watch commercials. He takes a beatin' but keeps on tickin'.