Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (5182)	9/24/1998 2:39:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

BP, that's just the difference. I didn't insult Judge Napolitano or his article. I did make an apparently incorrect inference that he may have relied on information leaked to the press to assess the context of Bennett's questioned statement, and thus might not have all the necessary information. I continue to think that his argument makes context quite important, and that Napolitano did not marshal much evidence that his evaluation of the context was correct. He may of course be correct. He just didn't slam dunk his argument, to my mind. You obviously feel differently about that. That's fine. Let me make something else clear. It is certainly possible that the Court of Appeals will reverse Judge Wright. I doubt it and hope not, for reasons outside of this case. If they do it will be over her determination that a showing of objectively determined job damages is a necessary element for a sexual harassment suit. Routed as sexual harassment law is in job discrimination law. If they do reverse it will likely open huge additional floodgates of harassment suits. Where some women will claim to have had crude encounters though they suffered no damages. What an invitation to try the litigation roulette wheel that would be. For someone who is mad for other reasons, and quiting anyway, say. In a largely she said, he said situation, the requirement of more objectively determinable resulting career damage is vital. Otherwise it comes down pretty much to a jury popularity contest, and a jury selection contest, especially considering the low standards of proof required in civil cases. Doug