Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
USA
No worries, I'm sure that if it comes down to brass tacks Susan Collins will be glad to make sure that Barrett learns her lesson.
Contextually, that appears to have been a 2-1 initial appeal ruling confirmed by a 7-4 full court ruling.
The moral aspect of the case aside, that suggests Barrett and her other six peers had a much more substantial position than that Tweet implies. It's not that I doubt that Barrett will be the usual right-wing upholder of big money and (sometimes where appropriate) government over the US people, but I'd prefer cases which gave a stronger legal rather than emotive argument.
I don't see how 'It's legal to deny compensation for rape because of this technicality' is better than 'it's really fucked up to deny compensation for rape'.
I would assume the key issue under contention is whether the institution made sufficient efforts to ensure the wellbeing of its inmates and good conduct of its staff.
Is that a "technicality", or is it part of the fundamental aspect of applying blame appropriately?
Typically in cases like these the institution can be held liable and then, if the institution wants, it may sue the individual who they think is more directly responsible.
Can I just point out how bullshit it wad the merriam webster dictionary changed the definition of Sexual preference to claim it was offensive literally after it was used to attack Judge Coney Barrett?
Or the number of places who jumped in to declare it offensive who were using it mere months ago?
Or the number of places who jumped in to declare it offensive who were using it mere months ago?
Yeah, and that's stupid. As a Catholic, and someone who very much values the time I had as a Boy Scout, I'm certainly biased. But the idea that someone can join an organization, break that organization's rules, break the law, and thus the organization gets sued for millions in damages is ridiculous and I hate it.
Like, this prison guard committed a crime, plead guilty, and went to jail. That's the justice. The wrongdoer is punished. If they wanted to take his money, that'd be a whole different thing. Cause he committed the crime. The county didn't. If anything, the county is a secondary victim of the crime. Their facilities were used for sex crimes, their reputation scarred, and though relatively minor to those they're out a trained prison guard. And people thought it was proper to take $6.7 million dollars from them on top of that? That's not justice.
The organization put a rapist into a position of authority over people. The organization deserves to take a hit too. He only had the opportunity to commit these crimes acting as an agent of the county
Additionally, the bastard who raped her was able to plead down to felony misconduct, is not on a sex offenders registry, and he served only 3 days in prison.
WHAT FUCKING JUSTICE DID SHE GET, EXACTLY?
Last edited:
Says it all in your phrasing.
Not that the victim was awarded 6.7m in compensation.
That "people thought it was proper to take 6.7m from them" after "their reputation took a hit and they're down a guard".
They didn't put a rapist in a position of authority. They put a person in the position of prison guard, who then betrayed them. He did not commit the crimes acting as an agent of the county.
The way litigation is going these days, it's going to become impossible to work with any population that is vulnerable for any reason without a billion dollar slush fund for the inevitable problems.
Or, you know, a halfway decent vetting process.
You know, if abuse is considered "inevitable", maybe you have to investigate why that is.
Last edited:
Or not having a toxic work culture in which prison guards don't really have to fear punishment for rape.
No vetting process is foolproof. Like, if you've got something to suggest this guy was a rapist when they hired him, sure punish the county. Bad things can happen without a mistake in the vetting process, so unless you have reason to believe they did something wrong, why blame them?
Yes, abuses can happen with any vetting process.
Abuses this fucking common? No, at this point, coincidence becomes the least likely explanation.
Reliable numbers are hard to come by, as a result of known underreporting and poor data practices. But the DOJ itself describes abuse as "highly prevalent", "systemic", etc. Independent researchers routinely find it extremely widespread.
Abuse is widespread everywhere in everything. Do you have reason to believe this crime is exceptionally common in this jail? That they are doing something or not doing anything to prevent misconduct that would be worthy of punishment?