Subject:
|
Re: Bad day for individual rights
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:04:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
776 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:Hzo4Gy.11KG@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> > Hmm, a bunch of Supreme Court decisions today...
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.police.id/index.html
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.hmos.ap/index.html
> >
> > Frank
>
> I don't have an opinion on the second ruling -- it seems OK (without • reading the
> laws in question
I guess the 2nd decision is more of a state's rights issue. But it should be
an individual rights issue. Why do state or federal governments need to tell
us when we can and can not sue? Why should damages be limited to the value
of the service not provided? Oops, we didn't bandage your wound so you bled
to death and died... Ok, so perhaps you could (and should) seek the service
some other way, but it's hard do that without money (which is why you bought
the insurance in the first place).
The 1st article lists some other rulings that are anti-individual rights
also.
Of course the big test will be what happens with the detainees decisions.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bad day for individual rights
|
| (...) I don't have an opinion on the second ruling -- it seems OK (without reading the laws in question), but I do disagree with the first. In 1906, in _Hale v. Henkel_, the court wrote: "The individual...owes no such duty [to submit his books and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
