Hypocrite of the week: Robert Bork

[FromWayDowntown]

I do think you're being willfully ignorant of the argument though. Equating a disdain for the obscene excesses in jury awards -- as can be seen in certain cases over recent decades -- with a belief all punitive awards are unwarranted is, you should admit, an unwarranted characterization.

I'd obviously disagree with you on this point.

I understand arguments expressing concerns for excessive exemplary damages. But I don't find it to be an intellectually honest position for one to claim to be an advocate for merchants and premises owners by disdaining exemplary damages while at the same time seeking exemplary damages against the very people he's advocating for.

More to the point, I find Judge Bork's exemplary damages pleading in this case to be a particularly egregious example of hypocrisy because there is nothing about his case that makes a strong argument for obtaining exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are frequently justified where a defendant has undertaken a course of conduct that threatens the safety of the public at large. The policy justifications for such awards are that if the tortfeasor doesn't face a significant exemplary penalty, it will continue with its course of conduct. But there's nothing about this case that suggests to me that the conduct of the Yale Club threatens the public or even a significant number of those who use the Yale Club's facilities.

When an award of exemplary damages is based on conduct or nonfeasance concerning a particular party -- here, Judge Bork -- the justification for such an award frequently stems solely from some evidence that the tortfeasor's conduct was rooted in malice towards the injured party.

Here, Judge Bork's own pleadings -- at least on the basis of what has been reported -- claim that the Yale Club engaged in gross negligence, not in malice towards him. But since such alleged gross negligence isn't likely a threat to a large number of people, the generalized justifications for exemplary damages in this case would seem to be non-existent. As such, the claim for exemplary damages here would appear to be at odds with even the most basic policies that such damages are meant to serve. That's particularly unusual to me, given that the plaintiff is such a staunch advocate for limiting those awards.

As an aside, I think that popular reports of supposedly-excessive exemplary damages are frequently fueled by misinformation or misrepresentations concerning the basis for the awards. The McDonald's coffee burn case is a prime example of that. When there was such public hub-bub about that award, there was very little reporting concerning the nature of the victim's injuries or the fact that McDonald's had, ins utionally, encountered numerous examples of good fortune as others suffered lesser injuries resulting from its too-hot coffee. The only way to encourage McDonald's to change its policy was to hit it with damages that were substantial -- the minimal costs of personal injury suits hadn't provided sufficient incentive. There are many other examples, but McDonald's coffee is probably the most frequently cited example in this argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni will never be able to remove FWD's foot from his ass.

My God… You are a ing idiot. He did not ask for punitive damages. Did you read the article?

Bork is seeking more than $1 million in damages and punitive damages.

The complaint is online. He's asking for a million + punitive damages.

[Yonivore]

I'd obviously disagree with you on this point.

I understand arguments expressing concerns for excessive exemplary damages. But I don't find it to be an intellectually honest position for one to claim to be an advocate for merchants and premises owners by disdaining exemplary damages while at the same time seeking exemplary damages against the very people he's advocating for.

Once again, you dodge Judge Bork's expression of excessive awards -- not punitive awards in principle.

And, even if the term excessive is a matter of subjectivity, it would seem that you would have to consider Judge Bork's conception of what is excessive before claiming he has taken a hypocritical position in his own case.

Finally, before any hypocrisy could be revealed, he would have to be awarded -- and voluntarily retain -- such an excessive award.

You seem to be arguing that a person opposed to people driving 150 miles per hour on the freeway shouldn't be allowed to drive on the freeway, at posted speeds, without being hypocritical.

More to the point, I find Judge Bork's exemplary damages pleading in this case to be a particularly egregious example of hypocrisy because there is nothing about his case that makes a strong argument for obtaining exemplary damages.

You can read the complain online. I googled it earlier. The rationale for punitive damages is explained therein.

Your characterization of his case for punitive damages being without merit is as subjective as what are excessive damages.

Exemplary damages are frequently justified where a defendant has undertaken a course of conduct that threatens the safety of the public at large. The policy justifications for such awards are that if the tortfeasor doesn't face a significant exemplary penalty, it will continue with its course of conduct. But there's nothing about this case that suggests to me that the conduct of the Yale Club threatens the public or even a significant number of those who use the Yale Club's facilities.

When an award of exemplary damages is based on conduct or nonfeasance concerning a particular party -- here, Judge Bork -- the justification for such an award frequently stems solely from some evidence that the tortfeasor's conduct was rooted in malice towards the injured party.

Here, Judge Bork's own pleadings -- at least on the basis of what has been reported -- claim that the Yale Club engaged in gross negligence, not in malice towards him. But since such alleged gross negligence isn't likely a threat to a large number of people, the generalized justifications for exemplary damages in this case would seem to be non-existent. As such, the claim for exemplary damages here would appear to be at odds with even the most basic policies that such damages are meant to serve. That's particularly unusual to me, given that the plaintiff is such a staunch advocate for limiting those awards.

Maybe the lawsuit was brought after The Yale Club refused to accept responsibility for their negligence and were indifferent to Judge Bork's pain and suffering. Maybe they've failed to correct the defect. Who knows.

But, in any case, I don't understand why you're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that opposition to excessive awards (or favoring limiting awards) is different that not seeking such awards at all.

Using my earlier analogy, I can be in favor of speed limits and not want to outlaw driving all together, can't I?

As an aside, I think that popular reports of supposedly-excessive exemplary damages are frequently fueled by misinformation or misrepresentations concerning the basis for the awards. The McDonald's coffee burn case is a prime example of that. When there was such public hub-bub about that award, there was very little reporting concerning the nature of the victim's injuries or the fact that McDonald's had, ins utionally, encountered numerous examples of good fortune as others suffered lesser injuries resulting from its too-hot coffee. The only way to encourage McDonald's to change its policy was to hit it with damages that were substantial -- the minimal costs of personal injury suits hadn't provided sufficient incentive. There are many other examples, but McDonald's coffee is probably the most frequently cited example in this argument.

That's bull - to use a non-legal term.

Did the woman not realize how hot their coffee was? Had she never bought it there before? What idiot places a disposable cup of hot coffee between their legs and attempts the extremely complex act of driving? There are laws against driving distracted -- to include talking on cell phones, reading, putting on make up, and -- yes -- consuming food or beverages.

Obviously, this person wasn't capable of doing one and the other at the same time.

McDonald's made their coffee to the likings of their customers. If you don't like or can't handle hot coffee, don't order it. Her purchase of the coffee was a purely voluntary act.

Product liability cases based on non-defects but, consumer stupidity, are exactly the types of cases Judge Bork is talking about.

[johnsmith]

Pussysucker

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Worst insult ever on this board.

You really are a child.

[PixelPusher]

((( Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

My God… You are a ing idiot. He did not ask for punitive damages. Did you read the article? )))



((( Quote:
Originally Posted by The article that Wild Cobra did not read

Bork is seeking more than $1 million in damages and punitive damages.)))


The complaint is online. He's asking for a million + punitive damages.

I feel like a Cornerback who just missed out on an easy INT because the Free Safety was able to jump on it first.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[UV Ray]

Once again, you dodge Judge Bork's expression of excessive awards -- not punitive awards in principle.

And, even if the term excessive is a matter of subjectivity, it would seem that you would have to consider Judge Bork's conception of what is excessive before claiming he has taken a hypocritical position in his own case.

Finally, before any hypocrisy could be revealed, he would have to be awarded -- and voluntarily retain -- such an excessive award.

You seem to be arguing that a person opposed to people driving 150 miles per hour on the freeway shouldn't be allowed to drive on the freeway, at posted speeds, without being hypocritical.

Bork may be the definition of hypocrisy, but there is no proof in this thread. You kicked ass. Nice job.

[PixelPusher]

All of this talk of hypocrisy brought to mind another recent flap on this board about Al Gore's hypocrisy, although to the surprise of absolutely no one, Yonivore was much less discerning over the nuances of what exactly cons uted hypocrisy.

This has nothing to do with whether or not his movie is accurate and everything to do with the hypocrite increasing his own "carbon footprint" while pleading with others to reduce their for the sake of the world.

It's the very definition of hypocrite.

------

I talk about Gore's hypocrisy without even mentioning the merits of his "global climate change" nonsense and you, somehow, come to the conclusion one must agree with his underlying premise in order to call him a hypocrite for not practicing what he's preaching?

------

You can either bloviate about an issue or you can lead by example.

------

My impression of the whole Al Gore's mansion issue was that, in spite of the disingenuous nature of the hit piece, that is was at least bad form, if not outright hypocritical of him not to have some energy saving features. But, thanks to present day Yoni, I can now use those same sophis...er, arguments to refute past day Yoni:

Hypocrisy can not be attributed to Al Gore's energy consumption unless you can definitively prove that Al Gore believes his mansion's specific energy consumption to be a significant factor in increasing Global Warming. The further revelation that Al Gore purchased carbon credits for his mansion's carbon footprint heavily favors the case that Al Gore believes his energy consumption does not negatively affect Global Warming.

See? Gore's not a hypocrite. Bork's not a hypocrite. It's all good...


...unless you take into account one teeny, tiny little word that pops up in Webster's Dictionary definition of hypocrisy:
-----
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
------
Appearance.

Appearances can be decieving, but they do matter, especially if the promoter of ideas can, as Yonivore put it, "bloviate about an issue or lead by example."

oh well...back to the drawing board.

[UV Ray]

All of this talk of hypocrisy brought to mind another recent flap on this board about Al Gore's hypocrisy,
Hypocrisy can not be attributed to Al Gore's energy consumption unless you can definitively prove that Al Gore believes his mansion's specific energy consumption to be a significant factor in increasing Global Warming. The further revelation that Al Gore purchased carbon credits for his mansion's carbon footprint heavily favors the case that Al Gore believes his energy consumption does not negatively affect Global Warming.

See? Gore's not a hypocrite. Bork's not a hypocrite. It's all good...


...unless you take into account one teeny, tiny little word that pops up in Webster's Dictionary definition of hypocrisy:


1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy[/I]
------
Appearance.

Appearances can be decieving, but they do matter, especially if the promoter of ideas can, as Yonivore put it, "bloviate about an issue or lead by example."

oh well...back to the drawing board.

Sorry but the fact that Gore purchased carbon credits overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes his energy consumption negatively affects global warming. The only question left would be how long he continued to waste resources after his environmental epiphany.

[PixelPusher]

Sorry but the fact that Gore purchased carbon credits overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes his energy consumption negatively affects global warming. The only question left would be how long he continued to waste resources after his environmental epiphany.

That's what I get for not putting forth an "honest" attempt at a bull defense of Gore's hypocrisy instead of a half-hearted, ironic one.

Of course, that would mean the fact that Bork frequently railed against the excesses of punitive damages overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes punitive damages are excessive. The only question left would be how long he will pursue punitive damages before receiving the epiphany that this principle would also apply to him.

"...the false assumption of an appearance of virtue..."

"You can either bloviate about an issue or you can lead by example."

[UV Ray]

That's what I get for not putting forth an "honest" attempt at a bull defense of Gore's hypocrisy instead of a half-hearted, ironic one.

Of course, that would mean the fact that Bork frequently railed against the excesses of punitive damages overwhelmingly favors the case that he believes punitive damages are excessive. The only question left would be how long he will pursue punitive damages before receiving the epiphany that this principle would also apply to him.

"...the false assumption of an appearance of virtue..."

"You can either bloviate about an issue or you can lead by example."

But you're assuming that Bork assumed that all punitive damages are excessive.