Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 2, 2019.
If you carefully read the controlling opinion, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/340/135/, the ball's in congress's court. However, that dates from 1950, so perhaps there's a rich history of legislative inaction and presidential vetos to draw upon.
Arguing from the basis of "we soldiers should have the same, or more rights than prisoners do" will tend to have undesirable effects.
they should have the SAME rights as everyone else, no less/no more.
How do you order a soldier into battle when he has the right to say "NO!"?
They have a right to say no already, they will simply be court martialed for it...........
That's like saying, you have the right to free speech, but the government may choose to punish you for exercising this right. The traditional punishment for cowardice is a firing squad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
it's apples oranges from the articles topic............moving on.
I agree. So let’s give active soldiers the right to sue, and inmates the right to vote.
The argument about inmates sounds like a snappy bit of rhetoric, but it's a legally dim strategy. The government has seized prisoners and thus is responsible for their care—and, let's acknowledge that prison health care is routinely horrible, and that prisoners often die from treatable conditions, and that lung cancer doesn't exactly earn someone a reprieve from SuperMax.
In this case, the VA may have screwed up, and the Ferres Doctrine, a 1950's-era stricture, is to blame only for the fact that this soldier cannot sue. This has little to do with prison health care and in fact, the argument just creates a red herring to argue about.
Should soldiers be able to sue the government for negligence? Yeah, I think so.
As Task&Purpose wrote—providing far better coverage on this issue than a local Fox News affiliate—while the Ferres Doctrine limited lawsuits from soldiers, "for injuries to members of the armed forces arising from activities incident to military service," the doctrine has been "broadly applied to incidents far from the battlefield, to include training mishaps, to sexual assault, and medical malpractice."
And, Congress held a hearing on the issue earlier this week.
There's also a bipartisan bill, named for Stayskal, that was introduced by Jackie Speier (D-CA), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Charlie Crist (D-FL), and Greg Steube (R-FL) this week.
If you actually want to help people like Stayskal, you can push Congress to repeal Ferres.
Of course, it's also worth considering how long-promised pushes to change torts could complicated Stayskal's case, and even if he is able to sue, that doesn't mean his family will win because they'll still have to prove malpractice.
Not familiar with the VA are you
Honestly, I've worked on stories about the VA and prison health-care, and yeah, the VA's got serious problems, but imagine all the VA's problems except that no one cares, there's no money, and some people actively wish the patients suffer.
I'll take "what is marriage" for $1000 Alex..........