Can anyone make me feel better about my tax dollars defending Trump defaming a rape accuser?

@Thinkerbell So, just to be clear, you're good with your tax dollars going to defend a rapist.

@Thinkerbell lol. As I thought I made clear, I totally get where this decision may be legally justified.

Still pisses me off. Do you really not see my point about it being frustrating that my tax dollars may go to defending the right of an an accused rapist to defame his accuser because he got elected President and thus can act with personal immunity?

I get that I'm not a rape-sympathizing type and disagree with the whole idea that individual conduct should not be restricted by social norms or restrictions on natural liberty for the benefit or others or a foolish idea of the community or the common benefit, but, honestly, can you not get why this rubs me wrong?

@LordShadowfire An accused rapist, to be clear.

@MistyCee Eh. I've been around people who are like that, and you can always tell. They have certain attitudes.

@MistyCee Independent of any personalities involved, the thing that bothers me is that the decision turned on whether the president should be considered a government employee. I don't have any particular issue with the courts saying that, yes, he is.

What bothers me is that any tax dollars could go to defend any accused rapist. It just... I don't know... feels like they were having the wrong conversation in the first place. But then again, there's a reason I never got into law. I can't stomach this kind of stuff for long.

@Thinkerbell If this involved Obama instead of Trump, would you feel the same way?

@ShadowSister Forget individuals and politics, and I think that vicarious liability and governmental immunity are really sticky issues.


Take Gaetz for example. He may well get off, but why should he have had to pay lawyers to get him off if only he wasn't smart enough to attack his accusers and say it was in the course and scope.

@ShadowSister ,no offense intended, but if you can't stomach seeing accused rapists of being worthy of representation, you should choose a different career path.

Fyi, I did.

@MistyCee

Yep. I agree.


No, just that tax dollars paying for it because of the ruling of employment status. But yes, it's sticky. It's probably the right thing. And even so, it feels...yuk.

I'm pretty sure I'm just reiterating everything you've already said. I don't really disagree with you about anything here.

@LeopoldBloom


If it had involved Obama, Misty wouldn't have written her 57-page opinion piece, and I probably would not have noticed at all.

@Thinkerbell
Yes, but government employees can and do get personally sued for their own words and actions...

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just not understanding why does he get a loophole that other government employees don't...

But certain government employees have to buy sue insurance for this exact reason...

So I don't understand how they can be sued personally, if the the President can't be?...

@Viper

As usual, high govt officials give themselves special protections.
(like exemption from insider trading laws; ask Nancy about that)

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/46597/can-us-congress-members-be-successfully-sued-for-defamation

@Thinkerbell yeah, that would make sense, if their is some rule for the top tier only...


Which is why I get tired of people talking about a top politican is going to get arrested, it just doesn't seem to happen above Governor.

@Thinkerbell I'm asking about your reaction to an event, not your reaction to what another SW user says about it.

It sounds like you're against qualified immunity? Or just for members of Congress?

@LeopoldBloom

I'm against high government office-holders having special exemptions, no matter who they are.

See the link in my comment to Viper, three comments above. The immunity is not just for members of Congress.

I assume the law was (ostensibly) passed so that these high govt office holders would not have to worry about endless nuisance suits.

@Thinkerbell I don't like the idea of high office holders having special privileges, but I also don't like the idea of their work being interrupted by nuisance lawsuits. The framers intended for members of Congress to be held accountable by that body, but unfortunately, representatives being stripped of committee assignments or being expelled is all too rare. On the other hand, I don't want the majority party to expel the loudest members of the minority just because they're annoying.

If a politician commits a crime, their constituents should vote them out and they can be sued or charged at that point when they're a private citizen.

@LeopoldBloom

What I would like to see regarding lawsuits is that the loser pays the winner's legal expenses.
That would eliminate a LOT of nuisance suits brought by slip-and-fall shysters.

And in criminal cases, if the defendant is found not guilty, the govt should pay his legal fees.

@Thinkerbell I believe that's how it works in the UK with civil suits. The problem with that is it pretty much means anyone without resources can't sue a wealthy person. But our system has led to the situation where anyone suing for damages after an auto accident (to give one example) will face an insurance company that will fight tooth and nail to protect their client.

I agree that the government should cover the legal fees of anyone found not guilty. Criminal defense can ruin a person financially. That being said, at least on the federal level, the DOJ rarely charges anyone unless they're almost completely certain of a conviction.

@LeopoldBloom


Yes they can, if they have a strong case. The poor person's lawyer would gladly take their case on consignment, if the lawyer was quite certain to get paid by the rich defendant, not to mention getting a cut of the damages payment.

@Thinkerbell I agree that the tort system needs an overhaul, but I'd be careful with an across the board "loser pays" policy without researching it first and seeing how it works in other countries that have it.

Many lawyers won't take cases on consignment anyway unless they're already certain of victory and the potential payout is big enough.

@LeopoldBloom Guys, lawyers don't take cases on consignment but on a contingency fee arrangement, and state bar associations, courts and legislatures have monkeyed with them a little bit, but I haven't heard of anyone seriously talking about getting rid of them now completely for years.

Getting rid of the American Rule and making losers pay the others costs and attorneys fees is actually more feasible, at least in some instances, like defamation, which is what SLAPP laws are about.

@MistyCee I meant contingency. I think autocorrect changed that. However, lawyers generally don't like contingency unless they have a good chance of winning a large amount, so it favors class actions or where the plaintiff was clearly wronged. For anything else, you're out of luck unless you can pay out of pocket.