Breyer retirement

[Mr. Deez]

The identity politics angle that they're pushing is counterproductive at this point and just invites the tokenism criticism and looks clownish. Instead of blabbing on about it to make themselves look righteous, he should just name his nominee and let her resume speak for itself. At least if his pick is going to be one of the women rumored to be on the list, nobody is going to confuse her for a white man. They'll know she's a black woman.

 

[horninchicago]

Wonder if Brandon will make the same sort of comments about whomever like he did about Obozo so many year ago. Clean, articulate, etc. You know, racist comments which were ignored because (D) after his last name.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

They'll know she's a black woman.

"IS" or "IDENTIFIES AS"?

 

[Monahorns]

I'm all ears. I haven't seen any. If you rear end someone, total their car, force them to have back surgery, and potentially be out of work for a few months, can you write out a check to cover all that? It could easily cost $100K. Maybe you can cover it, and maybe you would because it's the right thing to do. Very few could, and most who could wouldn't and couldn't be easily forced to do so. Can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Obviously I will not come up with something complete, but I was thinking of something like a victim restitution law like you have in civil cases. Insurance is a good way to prevent you from having to make a $100k payment in case of you causing someone else's bodily harm. It is a wise thing to do. All I am saying is that it isn't the only way. The forcing people to have insurance is the only part I even question. I am not saying it's wrong but maybe it is and there would be a more just way to do it.

First party insurance is fine, but it doesn't hold the wrongdoer accountable when it isn't nature. Suppose I get drunk, jump the curb, and drive into your living room. Should that cost be incurred by you and your insurance (and therefore your insurance rates) or by me and mine?

Also, do bear in mind that homeowners insurance has a liability component. If your dog attacks someone and you get sued, it's going to pay. If you accidentally fire your weapon and injure or kill someone, it's going to pay. Should I have to carry "other people's dog and firearm insurance" to protect me if that happens?

Yeah. In that example, the cost should be incurred by you in some way. You shouldn't have to buy insurance for something someone else will be responsible for. But you said we already do that in car insurance, right? I thought you were saying that was the correct war to do it. All I was saying was that those who cause problems can and should be held financially responsible whether or not they had insurance.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

All I was saying was that those who cause problems can and should be held financially responsible whether or not they had insurance.

I agree in theory, but prefer to pay for UM/UIM coverage in practicality.

Example: Juan the carpenter is in the country illegally, but is a decent man who keeps his head down and works his jobs, being paid $15 an hour under the table. He sends most of that money back home. He has no bank account, nor any significant assets to his name. He rear ends your Audi, causing $25000 worth of damage to your vehicle (but fortunately for you no injuries). Additionally, he deflects off your vehicle and hits another vehicle in the next lane, causing an additional $8000 worth of damage to it. He has no insurance.

Question: How are you going to hold him financially liable for the damage he caused? How are you going to be made whole? Might you eventually be able to garnish his under-the-table wages for your $25K? Not damned likely, but maybe. Even if successful in garnishing his wages and keeping him from simply disappearing, how long would it be before you were made whole?

I'd rather spend the money on UM/UIM coverage so I could be made whole by my insurance policy, with certainty and in a reasonable timeframe.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Obviously I will not come up with something complete, but I was thinking of something like a victim restitution law like you have in civil cases.

I assume you mean criminal cases. Criminal courts can order restitution, but that doesn't change the dynamic much. They have more leverage over a defendant than a civil court has, but there's only so much they can do. If the money isn't there, then it isn't there.

Insurance is a good way to prevent you from having to make a $100k payment in case of you causing someone else's bodily harm. It is a wise thing to do. All I am saying is that it isn't the only way. The forcing people to have insurance is the only part I even question. I am not saying it's wrong but maybe it is and there would be a more just way to do it.

Again, I'm open to another way, but until someone proposes something, I'm not going to throw every auto accident victim under the bus.

Yeah. In that example, the cost should be incurred by you in some way. You shouldn't have to buy insurance for something someone else will be responsible for. But you said we already do that in car insurance, right? I thought you were saying that was the correct war to do it. All I was saying was that those who cause problems can and should be held financially responsible whether or not they had insurance.

It would be nice to hold them responsible with or without insurance, but it's not gonna happen. Trust me. I've tried.

 

[Monahorns]

Question: How are you going to hold him financially liable for the damage he caused? How are you going to be made whole? Might you eventually be able to garnish his under-the-table wages for your $25K? Not damned likely, but maybe. Even if successful in garnishing his wages and keeping him from simply disappearing, how long would it be before you were made whole?

I'd rather spend the money on UM/UIM coverage so I could be made whole by my insurance policy, with certainty and in a reasonable timeframe.

I agree. That scenario still exists today. You can still buy insurance for when others don't have it. So even though we "force" others to have insurance, it still doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[Monahorns]

It would be nice to hold them responsible with or without insurance, but it's not gonna happen. Trust me. I've tried.

I get that is the reality. But does that mean we should force people to get insurance for people who don't have it? Does forcing the issue make people get it? It doesn't sound like it does. But It does sound wise to me to get it for all the reasons you and Sangre mention.

 

[horninchicago]

I get that is the reality. But does that mean we should force people to get insurance for people who don't have it?

Nope. Sounds a lot like making people get a covid shot to protect others. Let us all calculate our own risks. While it may be a bad idea for me to not carry UM/UIM insurance, no way I should be forced to do so. It's my problem if I can't pay for my vehicle.

 

[iatrogenic]

Since when is it a good idea to represent every possible position based on how the general population looks? That is one of the dumbest thoughts ever to cross someone's mind. On the other hand, I'll take one of those NBA contracts since we may have a few openings.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Question: How are you going to hold him financially liable for the damage he caused? How are you going to be made whole? Might you eventually be able to garnish his under-the-table wages for your $25K? Not damned likely, but maybe. Even if successful in garnishing his wages and keeping him from simply disappearing, how long would it be before you were made whole?

He could be totally legal and with a regular job. You're not garnishing his wages. A run of the mill judgment creditor can't do that. If he has a shitload of money in the bank, you can get at that. (Of course most people with that much money in the bank can afford insurance.) You can file a lien on his house (which would be behind any mortgage or tax creditors) if he has one.

The best course of action is to have liability and UM/UIM.

I'd rather spend the money on UM/UIM coverage so I could be made whole by my insurance policy, with certainty and in a reasonable timeframe.

Don't hold your breath. For the first two years I did God's Work, I never had to litigate a UM/UIM claim. In fact, though I'm embarrassed to admit it, I didn't even really know how to. My boss never had to do it either. There just wasn't a need. We submitted the claim, and the carrier paid.

Then in 2004, the carriers got the Texas Supreme Court's nuts good and moist, and they handed down the Trinity Universal Ins. v. Brainard decision. It held that at least from a legal standpoint, you can't file a claim against your UM carrier without a judicial determination of damages. That means they have no duty to pay or even deal with you in good faith until a court (and theoretically all appeals are exhausted) determines what your damages are. Well, that can take years, and they can **** with you every which way until then. And from that day forward, I never settled a UM case without litigation.

If I went back to work doing the same work, I'd file suit as soon as I signed a case. No reason not to.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I get that is the reality. But does that mean we should force people to get insurance for people who don't have it? Does forcing the issue make people get it? It doesn't sound like it does. But It does sound wise to me to get it for all the reasons you and Sangre mention.

Does the insurance requirement literally make every driver have coverage? No. (Of course, the law against murder doesn't stop all murder either.) Do I think far more people would take their chances if they weren't legally required to buy it? Yes.

Culture is part of it. When I moved to Germany and had to set up a German auto policy, I asked about UM coverage. They had no idea what I was talking about. The rep found an American in the office who had been a senior claims analyst. He said UM policies didn't exist in Germany. I asked him what happens if a driver is uninsured. He said the innocent driver would be out of luck, but in 20 years of handling thousands of claims, he had seen only one (literally one) uninsured driver. He said the idea of a German not carrying insurance was so unthinkable that carriers don't even write policies for it.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

But does that mean we should force people to get insurance for people who don't have it?

UM/UIM is completely optional coverage. Nobody is forced to buy it.

 

[Monahorns]

Identifying with a culture helps things like this. This is a drawback of multiculturalism. People don't feel connected to the culture.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Identifying with a culture helps things like this. This is a drawback of multiculturalism. People don't feel connected to the culture.

Very true. This happened in 2013 - before the "migrant" crisis. I'd bet my left nut that not all those dudes are reliably paying for auto insurance. I wonder if they're reconsidering UM coverage now.

UIM isn't going to be an issue, because the minimum coverage is €7.5M per occurrence. Makes the $30K/$60K people in Texas carry look kinda pitiful, especially since medical care is far more expensive in Texas.

 

[Mr. Deez]

UM/UIM is completely optional coverage. Nobody is forced to buy it.

You'd be foolish not to. About 1/3 of Texas drivers are uninsured. Add minimum coverage amounts are a joke if anyone gets significantly hurt. I suggest $500K/$1M for UM/UIM. PIP is good to have - covers medical and lost income regardless of fault, meaning it'll pay you up front. Medpay is its ugly cousin and not necessary if you have PIP or medical insurance. It doesn't cover lost income. Furthermore, if you recover from a third party insurer, you have to pay it back (subrogation).

Unless you want to go to court if you're ever at fault and injure someone, avoid Allstate and Farmers. Progressive isn't much better. Lawyers rip State Farm a lot and I'm not a big fan, but they're not anywhere near as bad as the other three. None of the big carriers are good, but Nationwide, USAA (if you're eligible), and GEICO aren't terrible.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Garmel]

Blatant racism is fine as long as it's in the right direction.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Blatant racism is fine as long as it's in the right direction.

And the "right direction" means in favor of leftism. You can be as racist as you want to a black conservative.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Just putting this here in support of my idea that gun owners who carry their weapon outside the home should be required to have gun liability insurance. I'm certain many on this board will celebrate but I will never live in a state that touts open carry laws. Too many untrained yahoos carrying deadly weapons.

9-year-old girl who was shot by robbery victim has died, Houston police say

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I will never live in a state that touts open carry laws

Good! I'll stay here near the Austin ********, while you can have your Seattle ********.

 

[Monahorns]

We should punish the guilty but not the innocent. You want to punish everyone for the "greater good". Contradiction.

 

[guy4321]

Why doesn't it just say "whose rulings often resemble the political thinking of conservatives." ?? Guess what! They resemble the political thinking of Black conservatives too! And Asian and Hispanic conservatives! Oh my!

 

[Seattle Husker]

We should punish the guilty but not the innocent. You want to punish everyone for the "greater good". Contradiction.

I want to protect the innocent, try to make them as whole as possible. In no way shape or form is this 9yr old girls life worth the $40 that was stolen from this guy. What little that is known about the robbery victim, he won't be able to come close to making that girls family whole. He's been charged with aggravated assault for killing the girl. Maybe other charges will be added later. One thing is clear, that gentleman wasn't responsible enough to be carrying that gun nor using it at that moment in what I can only assume was a fit of anger at the robbery. Had he been forced to carry liability insurance maybe he thinks about the awesome responsibility of carrying the gun. At a minimum, that family would have some level of expectation of remuneration for the liability for that mans actions. At this point they'll be have to turn to the generosity of a "Go Fund Me" campaign while he spends every last dime to pay lawyers to avoid any responsibility for his actions.

 

[nashhorn]

Can only say I’m on the ‘that guy should pay’ band wagon. Imo, he wasn’t stable enough to be carrying.

 

[theiioftx]

Even if he was Elon Musk, there is not enough money in the world to make them “whole.”

Let’s digest some things here:

1) Both 9 year olds were shot after 9pm. When my child was 9, she was in bed before 9pm.

2) The first sign the robbery victim was an idiot was using an ATM in SE Houston at all.

3) Requiring liability insurance is not going to prevent idiots or criminals from these events. I’ve been hit by three cars in Houston over the years where the driver had no insurance even though it was required by law.

 

[OUBubba]

Can only say I’m on the ‘that guy should pay’ band wagon. Imo, he wasn’t stable enough to be carrying.

That's the issue. Most aren't but we live in a world where almost all can and no one is required to be accountable. My wife had a gun waived at her on a back road last week after she passed some idiot driving 10 mph down a county road waiving her around. She put her car in park and gave the "come on" gesture. Adrenaline is a strange brew.

 

[OUBubba]

Also, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT? What in the world? Isn't this a clear manslaughter case, at a minimum?

 

[bystander]

Requiring liability insurance is not going to prevent idiots or criminals from these events. I’ve been hit by three cars in Houston over the years where the driver had no insurance even though it was required by law.

My wife's son was hit by a 17 year old with no license. His mom was in the passenger seat with a passport only. They were from Mexico. They gave him an insurance certificate. It was expired. His insurance company is investigating but at the moment all that is happening is his car is being repaired (scraps across the right side of the car; he was sideswiped) and he has a rental. It happened at 10:00 PM in Dallas. He had just arrived (he goes to college in Dallas) after driving in from Austin. He called us but he didn't want to call the cops. He contacted the police later and they basically showed no interest in the matter.

So that's that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Also, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT? What in the world? Isn't this a clear manslaughter case, at a minimum?

Not necessarily. We don't have enough facts to make that determination.