Mickey

Lots and lots of opportunities in that language to bar lawsuits not meant to be barred. Like I said, I wish I could buy enough congressman to get the "You Can't Sue Mickey Act" passed. By the way, just about every state common law I know would not permit a plaintiff to hold a defendant liable for the intentional acts of another. You can only hold them responsible for their own acts of negligence. The states which are pursuing gun manufacturers are doing so, I beleive, on a theory that says that marketing your product to crooks can, under certain circumstances, constitute negligence. What Congress has done, essentially, is to decide that under almost no imaginable circumstances can marketing a firearm to crooks constitute negligence. Maybe that is a good idea, maybe not. Either way one might come down on that issue, the bottom line is that the feds took this decision away from every jury, every judge, every state legislature, evey governor and every state citizen in the country. For those whose love of the second amendment make them willing to overlook this particular exercise in federal power, you might want to consider that if you grant to the feds the right to bar all such suits automatically, you also grant them the right to expand manufacturer liablity, automatically. Thus, if the political makeup of congress should change, as it periodically does, what will be your answer when they pass a law saying a manufacturer is automatically liable for all injuries caused by their product?

Here it is bib, in all it's glory: Feds overrule the states Some observations: It covers waaaaaayyyyyy more than just gun manufacturers. It covers trade assocations, organizations, federations, just about anything or anyone. It is limited to suits resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product unless certain exceptions apply. Problem I see is what if a guy has a gun that isn't registered. Isn't that "unlawful"? Then lets say the gun misfires due to a defect. Is the suit for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the product? My favorite part, under stated purposes: "To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States." Of course, the legislation was drawn up and passed specifically to stop suits filed by state and local authorities against gun manufacturers. Preserving states rights by pulverizing them, cheeky devils aren't they? I have no doubt that the laws opponents will seek for a way around it and it supporters will try and invoke it in every gun defect case that comes down the pipe. I am also suspect that this particular invasion of states rights will pass without notice by those who usually complain the loudest about such things.

We'll both have to read it I guess. I have no confidence that the legislation will be reasonably limited. Pigs at the trough and all, super powerful lobby. What if you are the sole support for a family of 7 and the crackhead who winged you has no insurance and you are unable to work. Would you sue if you learned that the manufacturer advertised the gun in "Crackhead Times" and sold it at a discount to any customer who could produce an empty crack vial? I mean if your choice was the kids living in a cardboard box and going after a company who actively encouraged the use of their products by criminals, would you at least consider the possibility? Are there no circumstances, even rare ones, where a manufacturer's marketing and sales techniques might have contributed, even if secondarily, to the criminal use of the weapon?

It isn't realitstic but as these shows go, it is the most realistic of the bunch. Realistic would be boring, believe me. An inherently dangerous product gives rise to a duty on the part of the manufacturer to warn the end user of that danger unless it is an obvious one. Thus you would not have to warn a consumer that a gun can kill but you might have to warn the purchaser of a firecracker of how far away they should stand before setting it off. A firecracker that doesn't blow up would have no utility, no use. Yet things that explode are dangerous. The law's answer is that the product may be made and sold even though it is dangerous but it must be sold responsibly, ie, with the appropriate warnings. It may not be a perfect solution and probably leads to too many warnings in some cases and not enough in others but it is a workable rule on the whole.

If anything, we should learn from this just how hard that prosecutor's job must be. How he has managed to handle it this far without any major leaks coming out is beyond me. My hunch is that he agreed to Miller's request that she be questioned only on the one source, Libby, because he really, really, needed her testimony, ie, his case is weak in terms of criminal charges sticking. That limitation allowed her to "not remember" where she got the name without being cross examined on the issue. I'm just speculating because you could argue that maybe his case is so strong that he didn't need to go there. Just have to wait. Politically, the administration has already paid their dues on this so even if no charges are ever filed, its not crucial. Like Clinton. Yeah, he was not impeached ultimately but from a political standpoint, that hardly mattered.

You don't think there is a political issue here? If you don't, just tell me that straight up and we can end this discussion. There are two issues here, one is criminal and that is for the prosecutor to worry about for now. The second issue is political and I think it is far more important here and frankly, more interesting to discuss. You see, whether or not people want to be represented by an administration that does this kind of crap, even if it turns out to be legal, is a fair issue to discuss. Its called politics. This board, I believe, is called "Politics, Polls and Pundits" hence my belief that it was permissible to discuss the political effect of a criminal investigation here. Sorry. My bad. Seriously, you can't really think that a criminal investigation, even one that results in no charges, will have no political effect when the persons under investigation occupy high positions in government? OJ wasn't convicted so I guess we should all just embrace him, I mean, technically he is not guilty so anyone who would let the failed investigation and trial color their opinions of him must be some raving partisan loon right? Sorry but I have no problem reaching conclusions about what I think about his behaviour regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. For now, looks to me like they did a nasty payback that skirted the law at best and crossed it at worst. Thus based on this episode and others, I have reached the conlusion that Das Karl is a scumbag, I'm just not sure yet whether his scumbagness reaches the level of criminal conduct yet. For that I am willing to wait for what the prosectutor has to say.

Yes, those cool headed, nonpartisans of the right were simply and innocently pointing out all sides to the story so objective are they in all things political. I'm sure they do. I think that the administration engaged in a nasty game of payback against a critic and were willing to walk the line of legality and maybe even cross it, to get it done. They think that Wilson is a liar, that its no big deal, that Plame was already known, that technically no crime was committed and that is all that matters, etc, etc, etc. Well worn territory here. I am not sure why it is such a big deal to you that I have an opinon as to the motivations of many of the people who defend Rove and company on this issue without fail, without exception and without even a cursory thought that he might have done just what he is accused of having done. I'm sure you are just as willing to charitably attribute the motivations of democrats on the board on this issue. I'm not ignoring them, I said "...those on the right..." did you really think that meant "...those on the right, all Xmillions of them, with no exeception whatsoever..."? Yeah, that's a fair interpretation. Is it really your point that there are no partisans at all on the board among the right who are going to defend Rove no matter what?

Convenient how you left out the next sentence: "An important question for sure as to whether anyone goes to jail but not, in my opinion, all that important on the question of whether Rove and Libby are political henchman, hatchet artists operating barely within the broad confines of the law." If you want to pretend that the only issue here is one of criminal law and ultimately whether or not Karl Rove goes to jail at club med for 60 days and ignore the political side, fine, I am not so inclined. The political issue of payback and hackery more deserving of the Corleones than of a Presidential administration is what I find most important and the technicalities of whether Rove beats the wrap or not is, by comparison, "ticky-tack".

Does this law protect them against suits based on a defective product? If the safety catch is broken, are they immune? Are the damages limited?

What if the telephone pole is placed 2 inches off the side of the road and the plans for the road dictated that they be 10 feet off the side but the contractor just screwed up? "Forseeability" is a big thing in the law. You can't be excused your own negligence totally due to the negligence of the another if their negligence was reasonably forseeable. Most states would throw both yours and the other guy's negligence in front of the jury and let them sort it out as to whether it was 10%, 20%, 30% etc, etc your fault or his. The cash verdit would then be apportioned based on that percentage.

This is already covered in existing law bib, its called the "inherently dangerous" rule. Some products, by their very nature, are dangerous. A gun that won't kill would have no utility at all. The law recognizes that fact but there are some questions that can come up with regard to that issue that are not easy calls. Those close calls go to the jury. You often have to prove the "inherently dangerous" rule.

There are other laws involved besides that one that the prosecutor is investigating so again, we really have to wait and see what, if anything, develops. Besides, that is really a technical defense, it has nothing to do with the principle involved. The idea that this was a nasty political payback to someone who dared to disagree with the administration is really not even being debated anymore. Instead they have moved to a ticky-tack defense of whether the law technically applies to what happened. An important question for sure as to whether anyone goes to jail but not, in my opinion, all that important on the question of whether Rove and Libby are political henchman, hatchet artists operating barely within the broad confines of the law.

Gee, I dunno KRC, I guess the 6 gazillion posts here attacking Wilson, making light of the investigation, defending Rove, denigrating his wife's position in the CIA etc, etc, etc led me astray on this one that they really don't give a freak if a law was or was not broken. Why else spend so much time on these irrelevancies save to make the point that Wilson got what he deserved and that given his wife's role at the CIA, it was a minor boo-boo at most. Thus, and this is a good summary for most of the posts from the right I have read on the subject: "Who cares?" You are right though, no one has said "Das Karl can rape someone and I would excuse it". That is why I didn't use any names or make any statistical declarations, I simply said, "...seems to me that..." which I thought made it clear that I was stating my opinion of their motivations. Given your freqent declarations regarding partisanship, is it such a stretch to opine that partisans of the right, despite the lack of explicit admissions, really don't care if Das Karl broke a law in this case?

That is a perfectly reasonable concern but why is it a federal concern? Tort liability is a matter of state law. Even when you sue in federal court, that court will choose the state law to use in deciding the case when it comes to torts.

That difference does not effect the question of whether Congress can override state law when it comes to what is and is not an actionable tort in that state. What is the basis for federal legislation on this issue? Commerce Clause? The Second A.? No one's right to have a firearm is being effected here so I don't see the Second being implicated. The Commerce Clause has always been interpreted very, very broadly but that fact has been a major bugaboo with the right for a long time. How would their attempts to roll back the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause in other cases be squared with the enthusiastic use of it here? I know how I would explain it.

I have no problems with the second amendment but at the same time, I don't see why the constitutional right to have a gun includes a right to be protected against having to answer for having negligently and carelessly used, made or sold a gun. Maybe if I donated enough money to the right congressmen and senators I could get a law passed making me immune from the consequences of my own negligence. I suppose the fact that this is a federal law overriding the right of the states to determine their own tort law and the jurisdiction of their courts makes no difference. Well, I have always said that the question isn't states rights but "whose ox is being gored" so this is no surprise. Lets just remember it the next time you guys on the right are up on the soap box complaining about how broadly the commerce clause is being used to allow the feds to trample the states. And don't toss the 2nd A. up at me, this is about getting sued for negligence, not the right to have a gun.

Campy, if trying to determine whether or not Plame was outed as an agent as a political payback by the administration is your goal, then yeah, all that stuff about Wilson's trip is irrelevant. If, however, the point one (Gavin in this instance) is trying to make is that Wilson deserved the payback thus any technical illegalitites should be overlooked, then it is relevant. Seems to me that the right is more interested in the latter. For me, I am just waiting to see what Fitzgerald does. Either he has something on these freaks or he doesn't. None of us know at this point if we are at the end of an investigation of the start of a prosecution. In the meantime I will just have to occupy my time framing the Delay arrest warrant above the mantel. For those who haven't had a chance to check it out: Delay Warrant

I don't blame Wilson for the Iraq war, I blame Cindy Sheehan. I don't know precisely what she was doing in March of 2003 but I'm sure she was up to no good.

Yep, we are all stupid but you. How lucky we are to have you.

The question I think we are all grappling with here is not whether Rove and company are scumbags, we are simply trying to figure out if they are scumbags who should go to jail. For that we will have to wait for what the prosecutor has to say. Maybe an indictment or two, maybe nothing. This is of domestic interest in terms of the politics and all but sadly, with regard to the WMD fiasco, we are likely to remain international laughing stocks whether Das Karl goes to jail or the Heritage Foundation Hall of Fame. We can all argue over the minutiae and bandy the details back and forth but the plain fact is that we went to war screaming about WMD's and we haven't found any. As to what that means and who should be blamed, much can be argued and has been. It doesn't change the history of it, the fact of it, we went to war complaining loudly about WMD's that ended up not being there. This will be an issue for our credibility and respect for a long time to come.

Is that a hidden slam at the grant I received for my research on multiple orgasms? I don't mind trimming the fat but that would be cutting the bone, marrow and all.

It kinda goes like this: You give the ball to Willis and if he gains 3 yards or so, you do it again. However, if you give him the ball and he gets stopped for no gain bringing up 2nd and 10, you start to consider other options. Recall also that we have been without Mike Williams since the first half of the Tampa game and Chris V. has missed two games. Running the ball and running the ball effectively are two different things. I have every confidence that if we are able to move the ball on the ground, Clements and Mularkey would do just that. However, when we are not gaining yards and the defense is stacked and you have backups filling in for injured starters, you have to throw the ball. He had 27 carries against Atlanta, 29 against the Jets. He was gaining yards so even though we were struggling and even though JP was the QB, we gave Willis the ball plenty. Against Tampa, he had 13 carries for 34 yards, 2.6 ypc. Clearly, he wasn't gaining yards. Against Miami, he had 31 carries and only 86 yards so even though he wasn't really getting first downs or running all that well, we gave it to him plenty. The result was a totally stagnant offense in the second half even though they did stick with the run. He had 14 carries in the second half. We run plenty, we just don't run well all the time.

Is it that bad? I haven't read it. Too busy reading the transcripts from the Dover monkey trial. How would you summarize it, assuming that I was G-dubb and needed a cliff notes version?

Look, I'm flattered and all, really I am. Even so, you have got to stop having these fantasies about me, it's starting to creep me out.

Don't remind me, the vet is soooo po'd that I haven't had him fixed yet. You'd think it was his couch Rufus was humping. What is it about vets and getting dogs fixed? "First, do no harm" isn't that the first rule of medicine? With my vet, its "First, cut off their balls".