Do you think your business has a right to put poison in paint and not be liable for it because a kid 20 years later can't prove it was your specific paint?
There is no reason to deny victims the ability to prove it either. Except $750K.Try nearly 40 years ago when it was banned.
There's no reason to attack companies and overturn "innocent til proven guilty" over such old history.
There is no need for a Constitutional amendment, just a change on SCOTUS, which will come if Hillary wins.senseamp, if you feel the ruling made in the Citizens United case is morally wrong, you have every opportunity to advocate and support a constitutional amendment stating what you believe should be the law. Stop bitching and start doing. If enough people in this country agree with you, then you get your way.
Give it up, very few folks on this forum will back you up on environmental issues even its lead poisoning has such a horrid history in this country. It's all about a being a good little conservative/republican, and never ever allowing themselves to come out supporting anything positive that has to do with the environment. Even if its to their children and their own determent.
Because killing the principle of innocent until proven guilty would be far, far, far more to the detriment of us and our children. And yes, I realize that sometimes people who were honestly damaged are sometimes denied compensation because of this, just like the families of people who are murdered are denied justice when the killer of their loved one walks free. We long ago decided the principle of "it's better that 99 guilty men walk free rather than 1 be wrongfully convicted" centuries ago. That folks like you would be willing to throw that principle away on such a trivial matter is truly scary.
Let's not kid ourselves, even if you weren't terribly ignorant about lead paint you'd still be defending them with some other rationalization, just like roflmouth.
Give it up, very few folks on this forum will back you up on environmental issues even if its lead poisoning with such a horrid history in this country. It's all about a being a good little conservative/republican, and never ever allowing themselves to come out supporting anything positive that has to do with the environment. Even if its to their children and their own determent.
Lead paint has been illegal since 1978.
I stand for the prosecution of anyone violating that law today.
I oppose witch hunts against those who used it prior to the ban, or whose litigation was already settled decades ago.
I stand for due process as afforded by the Bill of Rights and especially the 5th amendment.
I stand for protecting the environment.
The two values are not dynamically opposed as you would have us believe. You will be opposed when you try to !@#$ on due process.
At no point is this subject about supporting lead paint.
Anyone to suggest otherwise is flat out lying.
v /n ' nn//
Allow me to translate: agent00f realizes he is wrong but doesn't want to admit that directly so he just resorts to an ad hominem instead.
Hey man prove me wrong and just be bold and admit the truth, that you would gladly abandon presumption of innocence if it meant you could hurt some big business and get "free" money for poor people. At least then I could respect you for taking a stand rather than holding it but not owning it publicly.
But but but... someone with money is associated with "the other side"!Where's the stature of limitations for this thing?
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., et al.,
Apparently the house was painted prior to the 1978 ban, and half the companies being sued stopped using lead between 1924-1947. Am I to believe the house wasn't painted in over 30 years? The remaining 3 companies stopped in the 70s and I'm having a hard time thinking anyone should be sued, today, over what legally occurred many decades ago.
Was there no prior litigation regarding lead paint companies? You have to wonder what they've already been through on this very issue, and what they've already paid back to society. How can it not already be settled 40 years later?
But but but... someone with money is associated with "the other side"!
Basically what likely will happen is these companies will grow tired of the lawsuits and move their production to a foreign nation. As much as you want to control people with lots of money, lot's of money means you don't control them.
You can't escape such suits by moving production, not that facts matter here.
Appears you've been learning how to mouth off from roflmouth, too. That's a rather poor move given you generally aren't perceived here as the lowest common denominator, but I suppose in your defense it's difficult for conservatives these days to avoid bad influences.
If you care to ponder how the law works, consider that anyone suing anyone else has to actually win the suit before getting their "free money", and that if their position is found without merit as you suggest no such free money will be provided. While you're in that state of pondering things, also consider just how stupid someone has to be to argue this as violation of "presumption of innocence" when that someone is also arguing the defendants can't possibly be guilty.
Try nearly 40 years ago when it was banned.
There's no reason to attack companies and overturn "innocent til proven guilty" over such old history.
Stole my thunder. Is liability forever?
I sometimes wonder if something is going to happen to me. I have soldered with lead on a monthly basis for decades now. I am around it ALL the time.
How about you answer my earlier question. Why should we not apply this same standard of proof to the past owners of the house? Or the painting contractors who actually applied the paint? Or the store that sold it? Or the chemical companies that manufactured the ingredients? By the time you get done using the "prove a negative" legal standard on them that should be at least a few hundred thousand more dollars you can give to the paint chip eating kid.