#name the names
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
I agree with you on this one, if its found someone in governmnt is found personally liable of sexual assault, or gets a judgement against them they should have to step down and pay the JUDGEMENT out of their own pocket, but these people get sued all the time for all kinds of reasons, other than Harry Reid, and Boehner, and Pelosi, many of them are not rich, and they instantly become a target.
No one who is not already rich and corrupt would sign up to do this job on that salary if one lawsuit could bankrupt you. Tax payers should not have to pay out settlements, when it directly involves the person whose a congressman, but with the number of "Staffers" they have if something like this happens how could most people defend themselves?
Its basically opening yourself up to unlimited liability as an entity, without the money to cover it.
It sounds shitty having to cover these lawsuits but the bottom line is politically motivated people could bury a person in legal work if there was no one backing them up.
On the flipside no one in their right mind would take the government on in a lawsuit if they didnt think they had a winner.
Saying that people have the protection of the government is protection against frivolous lawsuits for people who must get sued all the time.
If anything congress should pass a law saying that any kind of ruling against a specific person means that person needs to step down.
Last edited:
And when the male leftist predator is asked, why do you support feminist groups...that's where the women are.
Another argument for requiring Congress the institution to be on the hook for liability is that - without doubt- in many instances and to this day the institution itself is complicit by failing to remove offenders while also failing to provide information about offenders such that a person take reasonable precautions.
Take the Catholic Church sex offender scandal/disaster as an example. For years everyone was in denial. Then it progressed to disciplining bad priests, and from there it progress to prosecuting priests etc. But over time, albeit an ungodly long time, it ended out where it needed to end out. Which was to go after the senior leadership for being complicit in moving and hiding bad actors around. That is why you see American cardinals being hidden in Vatican now and some church property in every major city in the u.s. and parts of Europe on the auction block now. To pay settlements. The institution itself was complicit.
Right now everyone is focused on outing bad actors in congress. And there are instances where congress just has to take the bozo that the state elects and he turns out to be predator. This happens everywhere. The best of companies has losers. But you also- without doubt- have congressmen who have offended and have been hidden by leadership and left to target a new crop of innocent victims. I don't think it is being litigious to go after the institution in those situations. As we saw for years with Hillary, you can have some pretty progressive sounding feminists who hide a lot of bodies when it comes election time.
Take the Catholic Church sex offender scandal/disaster as an example. For years everyone was in denial. Then it progressed to disciplining bad priests, and from there it progress to prosecuting priests etc. But over time, albeit an ungodly long time, it ended out where it needed to end out. Which was to go after the senior leadership for being complicit in moving and hiding bad actors around. That is why you see American cardinals being hidden in Vatican now and some church property in every major city in the u.s. and parts of Europe on the auction block now. To pay settlements. The institution itself was complicit.
Right now everyone is focused on outing bad actors in congress. And there are instances where congress just has to take the bozo that the state elects and he turns out to be predator. This happens everywhere. The best of companies has losers. But you also- without doubt- have congressmen who have offended and have been hidden by leadership and left to target a new crop of innocent victims. I don't think it is being litigious to go after the institution in those situations. As we saw for years with Hillary, you can have some pretty progressive sounding feminists who hide a lot of bodies when it comes election time.
Right. It should be within the institution’s best interest to protect itself from loses associated with harassing and discriminating behavior. The way to compel there being a best interest is 1. Public shaming by releasing the names and 2. Monetary loses the tax payers are aware of.
That should put enough public pressure to clean it up quickly.