MONTH OF FURY (9/20 - 10/19)

[Tdarcos]

There is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which says, “The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see Torcaso v. Watkins.”

"Antonin Scalia has made his decision, now let him enforce it." --Jack, 1990

Well, you're only about 158 years late with that quote. <<In the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the High Court sided with Native Americans and ruled against white settlers who sought to remove them from their land. President Jackson steadfastly refused to enforce the ruling, informing the Court, “Chief Justice John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Marshall did not take Jackson up on his offer and the order was never enforced.>>

EDIT: A few hours after I posted this, I remembered that I should mention that today, Jackson is memorialized with his picture on the $20 bill.

[Casual Observer]

There is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which says, “The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see Torcaso v. Watkins.”

"Antonin Scalia has made his decision, now let him enforce it." --Jack, 1990

Well, you're only about 158 years late with that quote. <<In the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the High Court sided with Native Americans and ruled against white settlers who sought to remove them from their land. President Jackson steadfastly refused to enforce the ruling, informing the Court, “Chief Justice John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Marshall did not take Jackson up on his offer and the order was never enforced.>>

Now, that was some interesting information that I did not know, thanks tDarcos!

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Is smoking a big civil matter? WE KNOW THE RISKS.

You and your nanny state.

1. Smoking is a civil matter, because for decades tobacco companies lied and claimed smoking dd not cause cancer, when they knew it does. Then they started getting sued. Eventually, all the cigarette manufacturers joined the Master Settlement Agreement, and a very large additional tax is now imposed on cigarettes (additional $1.30+ per pack), which is why now they cost more than $5 a pack. It's supposed to be used to cover increased medical costs for smokers.

So, you're agreeing with me. People know the risks of smoking, but guess what big fella, you can still get a cigarette. I will buy you a carton of Marlboros right now. SAME WITH JACK BOX MY FINE FEATHERED FRIEND.

2. It is not a "nanny state" to expect a food company to sell non-vomit-causing food.

Which is it? Cigarettes hurt people. Is it a nanny state to expect to not get cancer if buying something? Is it or isn't it?

I don't think you've studied the right case law, frankly. Never go against me when it comes to the law. Never. I know much, much more than you.

[Jizaboz]

Marlbrah Rads or GTFO bro.

[Tdarcos]

1. Smoking is a civil matter, because for decades tobacco companies lied and claimed smoking dd not cause cancer, when they knew it does.

So, you're agreeing with me.

No, I am not. Smoking tobacco cigarettes is known to cause cancer. We know this because there were newspaper articles, magazine articles, case studies in peer-reviewed medical journals, television local and national news stories. There is publicity and public exposure. WHERE IS THE PUBLICITY OF JACK-IN-THE-BOX FOOD CONSISTENTLY CAUSING VOMITING? Where are the newspaper articles? Where is the TV coverage? And as I noted, why are there zero YouTube and TikTok videos on the subject? Where are the Facebook posts on Jack-in-the-Box food always causing vomiting? Why have there been ZERO lawsuits against the franchisor of the Jack-in-the-Box, Foodmaker, Inc.?

2. It is not a "nanny state" to expect a food company to sell non-vomit-causing food.

Which is it? Cigarettes hurt people.

Yes they do. WHICH IS WHY CIGARETTE COMPANIES GOT SUED! This is also why they had to go with the MSA (master settlement agreement), to cover future medical costs due to cigarette smoking-related illnesses, so states would drop their lawsuits.

What is the usual and customary purpose for which a fast food restaurant sandwich is used? Is vomiting a usual, customary, well publicized, and common occurrence in that industry from eating them? Is this something that could be sued over? To relieve hunger and thirst; no, vomiting is unheard of, and Jack-in-the-Box's parent company has had zero lawsuits over food safety since 1993; Yes, you could easily sue.

Now the same questions for tobacco cigarettes, usual and customary purpose? Is cancer publicized and common when smoking? Can they be sued over this? To relieve craving for nicotine as well as the other chemicals including flavoring; Yes, the link between smoking tobacco and getting cancer is very well known; Yes, they have been sued many times, but it's harder to do so because these hazards are well known. (Another reason: vomiting after eating happens quickly and the chain of causality is easy to prove; cancer takes years to happen and might have other factors than just smoking.)

One could argue cigarette smokers have an implied "assumption of risk,'" because the link between cigarette smoking and cancer is well publicized to the general public.

To claim people have an assumption of risk of vomiting from eating Jack-in-the-Box food, it would be necessary to show that it is well established that the public is aware this is routinely happening. Where is the evidence of this?

Is it a nanny state to expect to not get cancer if buying something? Is it or isn't it?

No, it is not, and it is ILLEGAL to sell a product that causes cancer and that the product must be removed from public sale, EXCEPT cigarette manufacturers bought off Congress to exempt cigarettes from this rule.

As i said, if JITB restaurants had signs posted telling people their food causes vomiting, they would have potential grounds to avoid lawsuits, because people had advance warning. If you look at a pack of cigarettes, there is a warning right on the side of every pack and every carton. Also, there is another issue. Cigarettes contain nicotine, an addictive, poisonous chemical. One can't stop smoking without experiencing withdrawal symptoms, (unless they use a product to relieve them, like nicotine gum or patches).

If you stop eating jack-in-the-Box food because it caused vomiting, other fast food would not, neither would moving to non-fast food like home-cooked meals or non-quick-serve restaurants. Ergo, this would be clear and convincing evidence that something is wrong with their product.

I don't think you've studied the right case law, frankly. Never go against me when it comes to the law. Never. I know much, much more than you.

Oh really? Without looking it up, answer these five questions:
1. What is 'Chevron deference'? 2. What is the Daubert standard? 3. What is 'standing'? 4. What do you need to have standing? 5. in a court case, what is the difference between dicta and opinion?

They are all questions about legal issues. I can answer all these, correctly off the top of my head. And i know you can't.

[AArdvark]

You may not realize this but Jack in the Box is the fast food of choice with bulimia addicts.

There, I said it. Nobody wanted to come out and say it but I said it. Commander, does this give you a clue as to WHY nobody contacs the wire services or lawyers about this particular subject?

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

You think posting some trivia questions that have no bearing on the discussion will "prove" that you have a more agile legal mind.

Incredible.

You and your dipshitted fascist buddy think that the way the world works is that judges are jumping out of bed in a cold sweat, racing to the course to issue bench warrants for tickets 6 miles over, 25 years after the fact. The two of you have a toddler's understanding of real world legal process and theory. Your knowledge of the law is UNWORTHY OF RESPECT.

I am the finest legal mind you know. The sooner you come to grips with that fact, the happier a person you will be.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

You may not realize this but Jack in the Box is the fast food of choice with bulimia addicts.

There, I said it. Nobody wanted to come out and say it but I said it. Commander, does this give you a clue as to WHY nobody contacs the wire services or lawyers about this particular subject?

Thank you. It pains me that we had to spell it out. Because the Commander lacks sympathy for others, he will not understand the role that Jack in the Box plays in our society. Trying to get them shut down and just fuck people suffering from a disease, I guess.