iltoroargento

“Foul play?!”

I’m talking about outspending on defense and offering settlements. It doesn’t take much to exhaust a wage slave’s capacity to keep a suit going, even pretrial.

There’s a reason most cases settle before trial. The judicial system heavily incentivizes settlement and corporations can spend more on lawyers than their employees can.

The employee’s lawyer is also gauging the cost benefit to their own time spent on the case, so the client/employee ends up getting shafted.

Of course, if there is a really egregious case, like you’re envisioning, that can go farther down the road, but it’s still an uphill battle for the plaintiff.

Edit: All this isn’t even taking into account the fatigue plaintiffs go through, waiting for their cases to even get in front of a judge can take some serious time and then a trial can be even lengthier.

This is a distinction I had to explain thoroughly when communicating with people in state jobs. It’s genuinely different. Mainly because of the added oversight.

But you can win by outspending…

Love Diedrich Bader. I remember watching him in Outsourced (2010) and being pretty miffed it didn’t get another season.

I feel distressed, tbh…

Just saw this, but yeah, definitely. I just wanted to be clear that I’m not dumping on experts in general lol I think people took offense.

And I think it’s even more dangerous than that, it’s not just people providing a solitary or fringe supported theory or conclusion.

Especially with a test like what was described, if you get an expert to put their thumb on the scales of an already pretty cloudy issue, it’s even more effective in a case. If they’re mainly doing that to help line their pockets, they’ll be more likely to play fast and loose with their statements.

Boomers act like preteens…

Quite a few. It’s definitely hyperbole, but in civil litigation, it’s hard to get people who are actually doing research/still practicing their craft and have recent knowledge/are the real deal as they feel like they’re better serving their interests by not wasting their time on a court case (which I find pretty hard to disagree with, tbh).

Edit: added the stuff about recent knowledge as there are definitely good intentioned people who will start doing this kind of work as they wind down their practice or research.

I mean, context matters, I’m mostly talking about the ones employed in a civil litigation context.

I would say those approached by journalists are less likely to be in on the take.

Lol I find it infuriating as well. Ugh…

Agreed. Functionally, the laziness of the US justice system incentivizes quick and easy answers and simple findings of fact. Not much inquiry or investigation going on in your average case.

Additionally, the pool of “experts” consists primarily of people in a field who have already made the choice to sell their services to the highest bidder.

Now, of course, there are experts who jump into a courtroom because they’ve been righteously incensed by the subject matter at hand or want to make sure that facts and scientific conclusions are presented accurately, but in my experience, every medical “expert” I’ve met is a mercenary.

Edit: Your point about peers is a very good one, although I don’t see courts expending resources to incentivize or force actual peers to convene for every malpractice dispute. No matter how much I wish they could.

The term sounds dumb off the tongue and, you guessed it, has no actual philosophical or historical weight aside from a callback to the name for Roman emperors.

Sadly, those who are interested in regression don’t access a lot of critical thinking skills, so they’ll glom onto this surface level reference and see it as deep and meaningful.

Yeah, the inclusion of this test in any kind of deliberation would just muddy the waters. I don’t see how that serves any goal of justice.

John Wick origin story material, here.

Nice, yeah, that’s kinda how I was thinking. Thanks for the recommendation!

Ooh. Those price points are pretty solid. If you had to pick one for daily use, including travel, would you go InkPad 4 or one of the eras?

Commenting to come back to this. Also interested!

I think they meant not run the first time? As in: he doesn’t run, and therefore doesn’t get elected, so he stays away from the spotlight and can, relatively, quietly live his life with his foot in his mouth at every turn, but nobody cares because he’s a D list celebrity.

And of course, not being the president, he has no access to half of the shit he’s dealing with federally. I feel like the state stuff in NY was a pretty long time coming, but the federal stuff could’ve been avoided had he lost or not ran in 2016.

I don’t even know what a world like that would look like, but I’m sure it would’ve been better than the four years we had of him.

Edit: Mobile, misspelled some things due to autocorrect.

Spider bros, for sure.

Also, whenever I see someone with the handle “spider”, I can’t help but think of the School of Rock character and his goofy dance and penchant for school administrators.