Nevada At Large Caucuses Stay Open, Hillary Is Furious

Aww poor Hillary, she tried to have her underlings cheat for her in Nevada by limiting people from caucusing but the big mean judge dismissed her case. Hillary may not publicly talk about it, but the teachers union and her husband that support her have been vocal in trying to limit casino workers from caucusing in special precincts because they work during the hours of the normal caucus. Shame on her campaign for trying to pull this crap and endorsing the teachers union' legal maneuver.

From Yahoo News:

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip.

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

Nevada's Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods.

The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the suit against the special precincts shortly after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit.

Oh they may say they aren't involved now, but when the teachers thought they had a shot at ramming this through the courts many were gung-ho, including Bill. If his advocacy for this crap was out there, then that is good enough for me. Please, stop with these anti-democratic tricks and let as many people as possible caucus for whoever they want, even if their unions endorsed one candidate or the other.

Fighting Victims Instead Of Helping Them, Welcome To The 9/11 Fund

You would think that the city would care about the victims of 9/11. Think again. The billion dollar insurance fund set up to take care of medical costs isn't helping those in need, instead they are fighting the claims in court, 8,000 to be exact. Michael Cardozo is the chief counsel for the fund, and he argues that because it is an insurance fund and not a compensation source, that every claim should be litigated.

So where does that money come from to defend the fund? Take a wild guess. Thousands of victims are in need to be compensated, and many claims are easy to see that they are open and shut. Medical bills should be paid out, but they are not. What a shame. Thankfully there are a few elected officials that are crying foul.

From The Daily News:

Homeland Security Department inspector general Richard Skinner said his probe will determine why the company "has chosen to litigate all claims instead of settling whenever possible."

Documents sent to Congress and due to be released later this week say the review also will determine "what procedures have been established to receive, review and pay medical, hospital, surgical and disability benefits to injured persons," as well as benefits to the relatives of those killed.

The insurance company has also been challenged by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the chairman of and ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While Bloomberg wants an alternate fund to pay the open and shut cases, the city has not done anything to help in real terms. After more than six years, a matter like this should not even exist.

Unfortunately, it does.

The Frivolity Of Ralph Nader

I have found that when Ralph Nader makes the news (since 2000) my opinion of him is directly correlated to his actions. I used to think of Nader as one of true working class heroes. He fought for workers' rights and safety regulations that irked corporations and promoted the general welfare of America.

Now he is hardly more than a has-been and known as the man that robbed Gore of the Presidency.

Even though Nader's votes did take away from a win, it was the way Gore ran his campaign that made him lose. Nevertheless, Nader has remained to be a thorn in the side of the Democratic party and all that oppose the current administration. Whatever he does now has a negative effect on the only party that has a chance to do some good for the country. Ideally, I'd love a third or even multi-party system here in the U.S. The problem is that that scenario is far away from the reality of today.

Furthermore, suing the Democratic party three years after the 2004 election and in the pre-dawn of the primary season is nothing but pure malice. His complaints against the Dems may have some credibility when confronted by a teacher in the elementary school playground, but this is Presidential politics. If the Democrats could see justice for the coup d'etat that the Supreme Court enabled, then we can take a look at this bullshit.

From Yahoo News:

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law."

Nader's attorney, Bruce Afran, argued that the DNC would be terrified of having the case come to trial. He said he hoped the committee would choose to settle the case and apologize.

You know what, I'll take care of this right now and apologize on their behalf. I am sorry that Nader is a crybaby. I am sorry that for all the talk of wanting a third party candidate, Nader could only muster a fraction of a percent of the electorate. I am sorry that he has made himself into a has-been and I am terribly sorry that President Gore isn't about to finish up his second term.

Who Will Defend God?

State Senator Ernie Chambers isn't expecting any money out of God, but he is trying to sue him to stop natural disasters. You may think Ernie sounds a little nuts, but the action is to make a point about a citizen's ability to sue whoever they want without calling a grievance "frivolous." The named defendant in his lawsuit was designed to make headlines and he definitely accomplished that. He even got airtime on CNN's American Morning.

From RawStory:

"It's a lawsuit against a defendant who has perpetrated much harm and damage on the human race," Chambers said on CNN.

Chambers says his frivolous lawsuit against the Lord was meant to protest a suit filed against a Nebraska judge who banned the words "rape" and "victim" from a woman's rape trial.

Some Nebraska lawmakers are trying to pass legislation preventing frivolous lawsuits, but Chambers says anyone should be able to file a lawsuit against anyone else.

He is right that the Constitution requires courts to keep their doors open. The term "frivolous lawsuit" was invented by conservatives that want their corporate buddies out of the courtroom for their shady behaviors. Sure, there are crazy lawsuits out there, but we should not legislate people from having the ability to seek justice in a court of law. Cheers to Ernie for his PR abilities.

Boycott Johnson and Johnson For Being Evil

The evil side of Big Pharma and Johnson & Johnson in particular is being shown in the form of a lawsuit against the most prolific aid agency of all time. The claim is that the emblem (i.e. The Red Cross) is being used to make a profit off of their safety items. The pharmaceutical giant is not content that they make billions from their own products and have some sort of ridiculous fear that a non-profit such as the Red Cross would try to take away their business. WTF?

From RawStory:

After more than a century of sharing the same emblem, a red cross on a white field, Johnson & Johnson has sued the American Red Cross for using its trademark for other than non-profit purposes.

J&J claims the ARC is marketing first-aid kits to make a profit, while the Red Cross says the money from the sale of the kits goes exclusively to its relief services and called the pharmaceutical giant's lawsuit "obscene."

People around the world "look to the Red Cross emblem and see a worldwide symbol of humanitarianism. The Red Cross will vigorously defend and protect our emblem and mission," ARC President Mark Everson said Friday in a statement.

The money goes for good causes you idiots. The callousness of Johnson and Johnson is definitely on display here. To think that the Red Cross will settle or that a jury would ever bestow a dime in restitution to a pharmaceutical company as big as this one is insane. I'll definitely be boycotting them for this one, and I hope everyone will do the same.

Another Lesson In Conservative Hypocrisy

In case you haven't gotten it that conservative tend to be massive hypocrites when it comes to preaching one thing and doing another, we the example of Robert Bork today. If you remember, he was a Supreme Court Justice nominee that didn't make it to the bench during the Reagan years. He is also a big proponent of tort reform to rid the nation of so-called frivolous lawsuits.

From The American Constitution Society:

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City. Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg. He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they "wantonly, willfully, and recklessly" failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

I hope he recovers from his injuries but a repudiation of his entire ethos might be in order here. Suing for a million dollars because there wasn't a rail to hold going up a small set of stairs? Come on, that is frivolity at its best. His friends in the tort reform community didn't take too kindly to the lawsuit either.

From Overlawyered:

Before someone accuses us of playing this down, let me be out front and say that I find Judge Bork's slip and fall suit against the Yale Club embarrassingly silly. The Wall Street Journal has the complaint. Judge Bork, speaking at the Yale Club, attempted to climb a raised dais that had no stairs or handrail; the 79-year-old failed to do so, and fell back, and hurt himself severely. I sympathize with Judge Bork's serious injuries, but it's beyond me what his lawyers are thinking in asking for punitive damages. And if any danger is open and obvious such that there is an assumption of the risk, surely the absence of stairs to reach a lectern on a dais is—especially if the dais is of the "unreasonable" height that the complaint alleges it to be.

He's right, this is embarrassingly silly. A million dollar suit for having no handrails is a little nuts. If he needed some assistance to get up the stairs in his old age, he could have just asked. That would be taking personal responsibility. But no, he has to go and file a frivolous lawsuit.

Taking a step back from the incident, Bork fought against all lawsuits that went after large corporations that were not complying with the law or treating their employees fairly. It wasn't just about slipping on some stairs and wanting a million dollars. What he fought against was the average American making claims against people that did them wrong.