Thursday, September 20, 2007

Nebraska Senator Sues God

I abhor frivolous lawsuits.

So, says he, does Nebraska Senator Ernie Chambers. So to prove his point, he says, he is suing God.

Oddly, the case that triggered this was a case an alleged rape victim filed against a judge because he ruled that she could not use words like "rape" or "sexual assault" in the trial. Oddly, I think the woman has a point and, judging by the Senator's apparent political leanings, I would think he would think the same. It's an odd case to call 'frivolous' when there are so many cases to choose from that many more would agree were frivlous.

Chambers himself said his main objection is that the constitution requires that the doors to the courthouse be open to all. Well that begs the question to whom would he like access restricted?

I think our Constitution have served us pretty well.

Now I'm not saying whether the judge was right or wrong to ban those terms from her testimony. See, that's what we have judges for. They are to use their judgement. He may have had a good reason to do this.

I can see an argument that when you are trying to determine whether an encounter was, in fact, a rape, and both sides are presenting evidence .... facts, if you will, to have one side constantly to state that the encounter was, in fact, "rape" when establishing whether or not it was a rape is the entire reason for the trial to begin with -- you can see where that is pretty much allowing as "evidence" the "fact" that there was a rape. It's a circular argument. In that case why are they even having a trial?

Let's not forget that people can be falsely accused of rape and sexual assault (Duke LaCrosse, anyone?) The fact that you say you are a victim doesn't mean you are a victim. That's ... why ... they're ... having ... a ... trial. And I'll be the first to say, let the truth come out. If he raped her, throw the book at him.

On the other hand, she may have had a point with the suit. Perhaps juries should be expected to filter out accusatory language from the facts. They are, after all, supposed to be adults. But modern society seems to be expecting less and less maturity from adults.

At any rate, I think these are good questions and with that in mind perhaps her lawsuit is not frivolous at all. We have judges to decide these things, and on judge can check another judges actions. It's a part of the system that works.

That being said, frivolous lawsuits are a problem, and if you ask me Sen. Chambers is showing a questionable interpretation of what constitutes one. He's saying that anybody can sue anyone, so why not sue God?

Now... can I sue Noriega? The answer really is, unfortunately, yes -- I can if I have a grievance I can specify. Should I be able to sue Noriega? Well he isn't subject to our laws, so what's the point?

Similarly, given God's existence in the first place, God isn't subject to our laws, either. He wasn't born here, he hasn't immigrated, he's not a citizen.

Chambers says God is under the court's jursidiction because "God is Everywhere". Well if you want to split hairs, our founding fathers wrote into our Declaration of Independence that our basic rights themselves come from God. I'd think that'd put him outside of the jurisdiction of His subordinates.

He's not even a living person (that is, a breathing carbon-based humanoid). And you can't sue His estate because there's so much disagreement on just who represents His estate.

Now to file a lawsuit against God to show how silly it is to file a suit against Noriega, see, that would be a more appropriate use of irony.

I have to wonder, given Chambers alleged (I haven't checked up on it which is why I'm saying "alleged") prior railings against Christianity, there may be another motive here.

He may be trying to get the Court to say that God doesn't exist.

Good luck. People have been arguing that for millenia, and as far as I can tell, there's no way for the living to prove it one way ... or the other.

No comments: