- Missouri Employment Law Info Site – TimsLaw.com - http://www.timslaw.com -
Supreme Court, Republican appointees, uses the archaic foreign doctrine of “Sovereign Immunity” yet again to hurt an employee on 3-28-2012
“Sovereign Immunity” has two rough meanings: “You can’t sue the King” and/or “The King is Immune” (such as immune from damages). These concepts get very complicated, of course, as does anything in law. A case link is below, to a fresh case from 3/28/2012.
The Republicans have made such a big issue over time, over the fact that some foreign legal doctrines are used in the USA, or that our courts use treaties sometimes (as if this is a liberal conspiracy to undermine the USA). The law has worked this way for 200+ years, and this is perfectly ordinary. — Those who say otherwise are showing off their idiocy.
I have personally heard people like Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News hosts, who do not understand law, make ignorant comments about the fact that we sometimes use foreign legal doctrines here in the USA. And then I have watched the web, as further ignorant people repeat that junk.
Should I rub it in some more? — Yes — Rush made it sound so simple in his idiocy, and so many of you bought it. Republicans and conservatives, who know an iota about the law, are perfectly well aware that very many so-called foreign legal doctrines are in daily use in the USA — In fact, while we borrowed from England, England was borrowing from France and Rome — Everything is a continuum — We build on what has gone before. Think about that.
We got our original laws from England, so it is natural that some of those doctrines might stick around — “Sovereign Immunity” is one of the more evil of those doctrines that have stuck around, and it limits peoples’ right to sue the government in many types of cases, or, as in this case, collect damages when a person’s civil rights were violated by government.
But the Justices who are embraced as heroes by the right-wing seem to love the archaic English doctrine of “Sovereign Immunity”. This is bad for workers, but I guess we got what we voted for, and many people have been sucker-punched two times in recent days — Thanks Rush and Fox — And thanks to W. I suppose — You gave us what we apparently wanted: FEWER employee rights and remedies. Congratulations to us for having our wishes fulfilled.
Here is the case: FAA v. Cooper
Article written by | Tim Willoughby
Maintained by Attorney Phil Willoughby
Founded by Tim Willoughby, Esq. (1959-2013)
Phil is a Missouri employment lawyer who is licensed to practice in Kansas and Missouri, and primarily takes cases in Saint Louis and Kansas City. He is a member of the Missouri Bar Association and Kansas Bar Association. Additionally, he has practiced in the United States Federal Courts of Missouri in St. Louis and Kansas City. He has also practiced in the Kansas Federal District Court in Kansas City, Kansas.
Missouri Bar Website (To view the directory of lawyers).
Phil Willoughby, Attorney
Licensed in Missouri and Kansas
Kansas City Office:
GUNN, SHANK & STOVER, P.C.
9800 NW Polo, Suite 100
Kansas City, MO 64153
Google Map of 9800 NW Polo, Kansas City, MO 64053
St. Louis, MO Office:
"THE CHOICE OF AN ATTORNEY IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION AND SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY BASED ON ADVERTISING.
Article printed from Missouri Employment Law Info Site - TimsLaw.com: http://www.timslaw.com
URL to article: http://www.timslaw.com/faa-v-cooper.htm
Click here to print.