Anti-Abortion Lobbyists Tying Up Bankruptcy-Overhaul Bill

New York Times ^

[patent]

Also, of course if you burn a Church down, you could, theoretically, go to jail for that and pay restitution, etc., but they have to convict you under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for that. If they can't do that, they can sue you civily and still collect. While it may be that such debts should not be discharged in bankruptcy, if you are going to hold one group of protesters to their civil debts, you should hold all of them.

patent

[patent]

Shaddup,

Probably a good time for that, I don’t have anything else to say.

That will change soon enough though, I’m sure.

patent  +AMDG

[gcruse]

Only in response, dear, only in response.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Thanks for the bump! I called both of my senators as well as my future (due to redistricting) congressman and my current congresslesbian. Sadly, I think the three demoncrats have the best chance of voting no.

[Aunt Polgara]

Only in response, dear, only in response.

Ah, but sweetie, you escalated the hostilities. Patent suggested that you read his post more carefully, and you called him a name. That isn't exactly the best way to increase the civility around here, now is it?

[gcruse]

I didn't start it and I'm done discussing it.
Flag all the pals you wish, AFAIC it is a dead issue.

[EODGUY]

I hope the author of this article refers to "choice" advocates as "pro-abortion", since he still uses the archaic term anti-abortion instead of Pro-Life.

[EODGUY]

Greetings,

Could you ensure I'm on your ping list my friend?

Thanks and God bless.

EODGUY

[Iwo Jima]

Your information is incorrect and incomplete. I am not simply addressing abortion protestors.

Is a $100,000 fine not "that big" in your eyes? If you can't pay it and the judge puts your in jail for contempt of court, are you living in Dickensian England to compare that to debtor's prison?

In a civil case, why is the judge setting "fines" at all? Have you not been deprived of your 7th Amendment right to trial by jury? Or I am being hopelessly old-fashioned to bring up the Constitution in this matter?

To be imprisoned for debt -- er, confined for contempt -- for not paying an arbitrary fine imposed by an imperial judge which you cannot afford to pay without ever having your case heard by a jury and which no higher court will review is simply unAmerican and unconstitutional, not that that seems to bother very many people on this thread.

You seem to be thinking that what is at issue is a $50 fine imposed by a judge after a criminal trial in which a jury found criminal conduct. What I am talking about is hundreds of thousands,sometimes millions of dollars of sanctions (also could be called fines) in civil cases where there may never have been a jury trial on anything, and certainly not on the sanctions, simply because the judge felt like it and knows that he can get away with anything, even putting you in jail becasue you can't pay his excessive fine.

My reference to things which you call "Dickensian England" speaks of things which everyone agrees are barbaric and archaic but which are actually still happening because judges are not subject to any effective controls and therefore they actually do these things.

[Iwo Jima]

if the judge says the perp deserves it, the perp deserves it. Isn't that how the justice system is supposed to work?

Absolutely not! You have it bass-ackwards.

See my post above. Where to start??? In a civil suit, there is no "perp." And what about your right to a jury trial. And if the fine is beyond your ability to pay, do you just rot in jail?

No jury trial. No effective legal recourse. All because in our judicial system, especially federal court (although many state courts are nothing more than personal fief-doms), judges are above and beyond the law.

Tell me this, if a judge took personal offense to you for some trivial or trumped up excuse and fined you $100,000 which you could not pay, would you have the same attitude? I think not. Because, you see, THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.

[FreeLibertarian]

DeLay Signals Hope for Bankruptcy Legislation, Finance Groups Say

Credit union lobbyists emerged hopeful from a one-on-one meeting yesterday with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) on the fate of the pending bankruptcy reform legislation, reported CongressDaily. According to officials with the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), DeLay told representatives of CUNA and other trade groups, including the Financial Services Roundtable, that the House leadership is waiting for an opportunity to vote on the bill, the newswire reported. "The leadership is for bankruptcy reform," CUNA officials quoted DeLay as saying, reported CongressDaily. "I want to have the opportunity to vote on this bill. I want to see it pass."

DeLay and other House GOP leaders previously indicated they hesitated to force their members to vote on the bankruptcy bill because of concerns raised by anti-abortion activists about an aspect of the legislation. But according to CUNA, DeLay said he was considering "whipping" the legislation in the near future. While DeLay indicated it is a good bill, he made the groups no promises. "Nevertheless, we consider this a very positive sign," said CUNA's chief lobbyist, John McKechnie, the newswire reported.