From: jdonald@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:05:47 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep4.063749.24042@anasaz> billy@anasaz (Bill Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.061238.23450@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>->Keywords: huh?
>->
>->In article <1992Sep2.175645.829@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>->>In article <1992Sep1.161349.24795@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>->>header.
>->]>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
>->]>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
>->]>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
>->]
>->]Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
>->Yes... see American Spectator - they have a complete quote (I don't
>->expect you to believe their non-quoted stuff).
>->
>->]children deemed responsible by the court should be able to sue their parents
>->]over matters that can significantly affect their future, e.g., child abuse,
>->]surgery to repair a hair-lip, ability to stay in highschool, etc.  I also
>->]understand that her position is now standard practice and well within the
>->]legal mainstream.
>->
>Well then parents could sue their children! How neat!  This liberal stuff is
>really great when you get into it.  Would there be a statue of limitations?
>(forgive me for not knowing this stuff - I'm new at liberal).  It's been
>almost 23 years since my son peed in the back of my brand new color TV.
>
>But it's only been two weeks since my granddaughter shit my couch.  Will I
>be able to sue her as per Ms. President?  Or would this just be for 
>"serious" stuff like nervous breakdowns, car wrecks and that kind of thing?
>
>How about when my daughter pulled out $3,200 worth of braces.  Supose she
>had sued me to get the braces to start with.  When she did that could I
>sue her back for the second set I had to buy?
>
>I hope you'll answer these questions because I could be in for some really
>big bucks here.  Oh, and then, hot shit, I could sue my Mother too.  She's
>done some nasty stuff to me lately.  
>
>No wonder the trail lawyers support this pair! (Guess who's ((ultra liberal))
>daughter is going to law school)
>-- 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>     Bill Moore     billy%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu    (602) 395-1732
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is a typical hot-air republican response, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.  You could sue all those people if you really want
to now.  Why shouldn't you be able to sue relatives?  Not everyone has
a wholesome, all american, apple pie family - i'm sure this comes as a
shock to many republicans out there.  And why shouldn't children be
able to sue parents?  no one has voiced a coherent reason why this is
a bad thing.  I really doubt lawyers are going to flock to children to
instigate cases against parents unless they have a good chance of
winning, and unless the child can pay.  I don't understand why
republicans think that people under a certain age have no rights.  No
one is advocating that frivolous suits be filed, but there is
obviously a degree of dissent as to what constitues a valid case.  It
seems that republican family values, as applied here, translate into
children being the equivalent of indentured servants.  
-jd

-- 
"Good Idea, Boss."	- Homer Simpson