36 Republican Men Vote Against Fair Pay!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another viewpoint:
January 22, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), made the following statement after the Senate rejected his amendment to reduce workplace discrimination by protecting the free choice of individuals to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities. The vote was 30-67, with all Democrats voting against workers’ rights. Senator DeMint offered the “Right to Work” amendment to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay bill currently being considered on the Senate floor....
Click to expand...
United States Senator - Jim DeMint
 
Beowulf said:
Justice is NEVER frivolous.
Bring on the lawsuits. It will define us.
Click to expand...
And frivolous lawsuits are NEVER just. But they do happen and they have the potential to ruin lives and businesses. Statutes of limitations are born out of experience as a tool to limit the frivolous lawsuits while allowing the just lawsuits.
 
Beowulf said:
Justice is NEVER frivolous.
Bring on the lawsuits. It will define us.
Click to expand...

Agree!

darkdog said:
And frivolous lawsuits are NEVER just. But they do happen and they have the potential to ruin lives and businesses. Statutes of limitations are born out of experience as a tool to limit the frivolous lawsuits while allowing the just lawsuits.
Click to expand...

As a wise person said, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
 
Byrdie714 said:
As a wise person said, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is why lawsuits should be filed within a reasonable period of time and why an indefinite statute of limitations is a bad thing. It's not just to expect a company to have to defend a pay decision it made decades ago after memories have faded, files have been lost, and the people involved have moved on or even died.
 
darkdog said:
Exactly. This is why lawsuits should be filed within a reasonable period of time and why an indefinite statute of limitations is a bad thing. It's not just to expect a company to have to defend a pay decision it made decades ago after memories have faded, files have been lost, and the people involved have moved on or even died.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Simply because someone has a lapse of memory, justice should be denied.
 
darkdog said:
Exactly. This is why lawsuits should be filed within a reasonable period of time and why an indefinite statute of limitations is a bad thing. It's not just to expect a company to have to defend a pay decision it made decades ago after memories have faded, files have been lost, and the people involved have moved on or even died.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute.

You're telling me that if a KKK group decides to take a black girl for a ride with a chain wrapped around her ankles hooked on their pickup truck. She slips into a coma after suffering such horrible trauma to her body and brain.

You think her family should wait "a reasonable period amount of time" and the indefinite statute of limitation is a bad thing? I don't think so!

What if the little girl doesn't wake up for 10 years and by then she is finally able to pinpoint who her attackers were because the statute of limitations ran out?

This is where you need to reconsider your perspectives, justice delayed is justice denied.
 
Mrs Bucket said:
Wait a minute.

You're telling me that if a KKK group decides to take a black girl for a ride with a chain wrapped around her ankles hooked on their pickup truck. She slips into a coma after suffering such horrible trauma to her body and brain.

You think her family should wait "a reasonable period amount of time" and the indefinite statute of limitation is a bad thing? I don't think so!

What if the little girl doesn't wake up for 10 years and by then she is finally able to pinpoint who her attackers were because the statute of limitations ran out?

This is where you need to reconsider your perspectives, justice delayed is justice denied.
Click to expand...
What you're talking about is a criminal case rather than a civil case, and depending on the exact circumstances and the state, it would probably be a felony with either no statute or limitations or a very long one. I do not know the legalities involved when the victim/main witness is in a long coma.

I'm not talking about waiting a reasonable period of time. Quite the opposite- I'm talking about starting a civil suit within a reasonable period of time.
 
jillio said:
Oh, I see. Simply because someone has a lapse of memory, justice should be denied.
Click to expand...
No, it means that trials should be held as quickly as possible in order to avoid people's memories becoming fuzzy, and to ensure that justice is done for all parties.

There are statutes of limitation on the books now for most crimes and civil lawsuits.
 
Reba said:
No, it means that trials should be held as quickly as possible in order to avoid people's memories becoming fuzzy, and to ensure that justice is done for all parties.

There are statutes of limitation on the books now for most crimes and civil lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As "as quickly as possible" is subjective, and something to be dtermined by the courts.
 
Mrs Bucket said:
Wait a minute.

You're telling me that if a KKK group decides to take a black girl for a ride with a chain wrapped around her ankles hooked on their pickup truck. She slips into a coma after suffering such horrible trauma to her body and brain.

You think her family should wait "a reasonable period amount of time" and the indefinite statute of limitation is a bad thing? I don't think so!
Click to expand...
The family should report the crime immediately so they won't risk filing too late.

What if the little girl doesn't wake up for 10 years and by then she is finally able to pinpoint who her attackers were because the statute of limitations ran out?
Click to expand...
Depending on the state, and the crime, even if the statute of limitations has run out before she could testify, it doesn't apply if the criminal complaint was filed with the prosecutor before the time ran out.

Like a car warranty. Suppose you have two weeks left on the warranty. You have a problem that is covered by the warranty that happens, and you report it to the car dealer. You call the dealer's maintenance shop to schedule the repairs (that are covered by the warranty). The repairs require parts that the dealer doesn't have in stock and must be ordered. He tells you that he can't fix your car until he gets the parts. The parts arrive a few days after the warranty runs out. The car repairs are still covered by the warranty because the problem was reported prior to the deadline, even though the work wasn't done until after.

Again, it depends on which state, whether or not federal laws are involved, and the nature of the crime.

There is no statute of limitation on murder, so even if the perps evade the police until after the girl dies, they can be charged with murder. They can still be brought to trial even without the witness. It's harder to get a conviction without the victim's testimony but it's not impossible.

This is where you need to reconsider your perspectives, justice delayed is justice denied.
Click to expand...
It's not a new concept. I believe William Gladstone said that quote over 100 years ago. The idea is that's it benefits no one to drag out trials beyond the reasonable amount of time it takes to gather and present the facts.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. As "as quickly as possible" is subjective, and something to be dtermined by the courts.
Click to expand...
Statutes of limitations are not subjective; they are codified in the law. Courts don't establish new limitations to fit each case; courts have to follow the time limits that are on the books.

"Quickly as possible" means the plaintiff doesn't miss the deadline by delaying.
 
Reba said:
Statutes of limitations are not subjective; they are codified in the law. Courts don't establish new limitations to fit each case; courts have to follow the time limits that are on the books.

"Quickly as possible" means the plaintiff doesn't miss the deadline by delaying.
Click to expand...

Please read what I said again. I did not say that statute of limitations were subjective. I said that "quickly as possible" was subjective. It is also subject to the time in which the information came to light, allowing the individual to determine that offense being alleged occurred. In the case that there is no specific statute, the court determines such.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top