Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Frivolous Lawsuit Hypocrisy

Politicians, especially Republicans it seems, love to complain about the justice system in America and what they call “frivolous lawsuits.” As far as they are concerned, for instance, every lawsuit against a doctor or hospital brought by an injured patient victim of medical malpractice is frivolous.
Lawsuits brought by little people against big shots and fat cats for fraud, negligence, product liability, or breach of contract, are almost always frivolous according to these blabbering blowhards. They’re constantly demanding judicial reform designed to slam the courthouse door in the little guy’s face regardless of the merit of his claims.  
Moreover, when a little person claims a fundamental right not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, or the right to do as they wish with their own body, these same statist politician hacks are quick to say: “Oh, no!; no way! – if it’s not specified in the Constitution, then it doesn’t exist,” they always proclaim.
Trial lawyers who have the temerity to represent injured poor people on a contingent fee basis to remedy the deliberate, reckless, or negligent conduct of wrongdoers are deemed “ambulance chasers” and “legal vultures” by these politicians who yearn for “tort reform,” i.e. harsh rules and procedures which would intimidate the little guy from bringing a meritorious lawsuit.
Yet when one of these sanctimonious fork-tongued political weasels gets the idea that he’s been somehow “wronged” by an individual, a group, or the system at large; or if he thinks his rights have been violated, he’s always the first to run crying and whining to the lawyers and the courts for relief.
That’s because the legal rights, complaints, and causes of politicians are never frivolous in their eyes, especially when they believe that their own ox has been gored.
Take the recent Virginia ballot-access lawsuit situation for example. Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Perry failed to meet the long-standing legal requirements for ballot access in the state’s March 6th presidential primary contest because his campaign didn’t collect enough valid signatures. So he filed a lawsuit in federal district court demanding inclusion on the ballot anyway.  
Days later, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman, all of whom either failed outright to satisfy the same requirements, or simply failed to even try, ran whining to their own lawyers clamoring to join in on the lawsuit claiming that their constitutional rights are violated and demanding that their names also be included on the ballot.
Virginia requires presidential primary candidates to obtain 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters in the state, including at least 400 from each of 11 congressional districts. It’s been the law there for many years.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul both satisfied the requirements without difficulty and their names will be on the ballot.
Newt Gingrich said his campaign's failure to qualify was a result of fraud. "We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 – we needed 10,000 – 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud,” Gingrich told CNN.
Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Michelle Bachmann didn’t even go to the trouble of filing the necessary paperwork to be included on the ballot. Santorum whined that Virginia's strict rules favor the richest presidential candidates. Perry claims his freedom of speech rights have been violated and calls the requirements "onerous."
“We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support," declared Perry's communications director.
"The challenge in Virginia isn't about the candidates; it is about the voters," Gingrich said with a straight face. "For the voters in Virginia to be told that ... their options are limited to two people who between them are clearly a minority of the Republican voters is probably unacceptable."
It’s not about the candidates – it’s about the voters. It’s not about me and my failure  – it’s about you, Newt explains without even a trace of shame. He was “defrauded” he claims, but if so, it certainly was not by the State of Virginia. He admits his own hired hand is responsible.
And now he claims like the rest of them that his constitutional rights are violated.
But, where is it spelled out, or even inferred or implied, in the Constitution the right to be included on the Virginia Republican Primary contest ballot in the absence of minimal compliance with the rules?  
The “onerous” rules were in place for many years but none of these bumbling candidates ever thought of challenging them until after the fact. The fact is that they all failed to meet the simple  requirements plainly set forth in the rules, and three of them didn’t even bother to try. The situation is as plain as day.
This is a frivolous lawsuit. If there were ever a frivolous lawsuit, this is it. This is exactly and precisely the kind of lawsuit that these disingenuous politicians always complain about when they holler at the top of their lungs for judicial reform against the little people.
A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit brought by a party which has either trivial or no merit whatsoever under the law or the facts, and therefore this is a blatant, obvious, trivial, frivolous lawsuit; an archetypal, quintessential, law school textbook definition of a frivolous lawsuit, and there  is simply no way around it.
But wait a minute! It’s not quite over yet. Corrupt and sleazy politicians usually get their way when it comes to their own selfish interests, and here there just might possibly indeed be a way around the rules.
Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, another slippery politician, spoke out immediately, again after the fact, against what he now calls a "deficient" system. He plans to propose emergency changes to the system which would re-open the process and “loosen the rules” for the pathetic failed candidates.
Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has also indicated that he is “open to reviewing Virginia's rules."
All of this is proof once again (if such proof were ever necessary) that when it comes to the interests of politicians, in stark contrast to the little people they claim to represent, they demand entitlement to immunity from their own frivolous lawsuit hypocrisy.

1 comment:

  1. I guess I don't understand how laws that keep the names of candidates off of ballots are in the interest of the voters.