The Courts (not specific to either party)

Archy1221 said:
I believe the article talked about altercations happening throughout the entire timeframe those instigators lived in VA.   The timeline dispute I think is when SCOTUS thought the idiot lady  called his wife a Cu$8 and when the lady said she did.  
Click to expand...
alito said the flag was flown that way "AFTER" the argument.  that would seem to be a bit of an alternative truth

 
commando said:
alito said the flag was flown that way "AFTER" the argument.  that would seem to be a bit of an alternative truth
Click to expand...
There was more than just one argument or altercation.  And Alito being wrong on the date someone called his with a Cu$& by a month in regards to an argument he probably hasn’t thought of got 3 years doesn’t seem to odd. 
 

But hey, if that’s something that is bothersome to you, I won’t discount your feelings.   I’m sure you feel that same way with this NY Judge presiding over a case where he donated to the political rival and his daughter has made almost $1 million being anti-Trump.  His daughter who has a vested interest in bad things for Trump.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just when you think it can't sink any lower... What in the actual f#&% is this ruling???

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/supreme-court-anti-corruption-law?utm_source=reddit.com

WASHINGTON —  

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down part of a federal anti-corruption law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to take gifts valued at more than $5,000 from a donor who had previously been awarded lucrative contracts or other government benefits thanks to the efforts of the official.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who asked for and took a $13,000 payment from the owners of a local truck dealership after he helped them win $1.1 million in city contracts for the purchase of garbage trucks.

In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

“The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.

Despite his reference to token gifts such as lunches and framed photos, the federal law was triggered only by payments of more than $5,000.
Click to expand...

 
commando said:
so much for truth in advertising
Click to expand...
I understand the decision.  Yes, bones are uncommon, but very hard to ensure 100% all the time.  I have chewed a burger several times in my life and almost broke a tooth on a bone fragment.  It sucks, and this guy had a s#!tty deal, but at some point people gotta quit suing because they has bad luck!

 
funhusker said:
I understand the decision.  Yes, bones are uncommon, but very hard to ensure 100% all the time.  I have chewed a burger several times in my life and almost broke a tooth on a bone fragment.  It sucks, and this guy had a s#!tty deal, but at some point people gotta quit suing because they has bad luck!
Click to expand...




It’s similar to when they say olives might have pit fragments, but… I feel the business should have to mention this. I always seen warnings on other foods where something similar can happen. 

 
funhusker said:
I understand the decision.  Yes, bones are uncommon, but very hard to ensure 100% all the time.  I have chewed a burger several times in my life and almost broke a tooth on a bone fragment.  It sucks, and this guy had a s#!tty deal, but at some point people gotta quit suing because they has bad luck!
Click to expand...
I agree that any meat or fish product may have bones. And I also don’t care for our overly litigious society but this specific case is a good example of why people need to be allowed to sue for damages when warranted.

The whole hot coffee thing was ridiculous. Of course coffee may be hot but a person will heal from some minor burns. Getting a bone jammed in your throat and almost dying from a product advertised as boneless….um, you might have a legit lawsuit on your hands.

 
JJ Husker said:
I agree that any meat or fish product may have bones. And I also don’t care for our overly litigious society but this specific case is a good example of why people need to be allowed to sue for damages when warranted.

The whole hot coffee thing was ridiculous. Of course coffee may be hot but a person will heal from some minor burns. Getting a bone jammed in your throat and almost dying from a product advertised as boneless….um, you might have a legit lawsuit on your hands.
Click to expand...

This always cracked me up!

 
JJ Husker said:
I agree that any meat or fish product may have bones. And I also don’t care for our overly litigious society but this specific case is a good example of why people need to be allowed to sue for damages when warranted.

The whole hot coffee thing was ridiculous. Of course coffee may be hot but a person will heal from some minor burns. Getting a bone jammed in your throat and almost dying from a product advertised as boneless….um, you might have a legit lawsuit on your hands.
Click to expand...
The coffee thing actually had a case.  McDonald’s was brewing the coffee at higher than recommended temps.  I think the chicken case didn’t prove negligence in the prep of the chicken as it was most likely prepared with normal “boneless chicken” procedures.

It does suck for the guy though.  And if it helps, we can throw another safety label on things for people to complain about.  Or, we could remind people to completely chew their food before swallowing.  

 
Back
Top