Overtime pay for everyone..and 40 acres....and a pony.

[wesfau2]

Jesus Christ.

I was kidding before. But you really do live on Fantasy Island.

No, I don't.

An aggrieved party must invoke the judiciary (because the legislative branch is not implicated) before redress may be had.

I'm sorry if basic civics is confusing.

In fact....if a judge took up this cause before a citizen with standing brought an action, you'd have...

clutch the pearls...

ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!

[Kaos]

No, I don't.

An aggrieved party must invoke the judiciary (because the legislative branch is not implicated) before redress may be had.

I'm sorry if basic civics is confusing.

In fact....if a judge took up this cause before a citizen with standing brought an action, you'd have...

clutch the pearls...

ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!

It's a wonderful theory polluted, corrupted and co-opted by the political process. 

In real life it is next to impossible. 

Do you have any idea what it would cost me in legal fees to take up this fight?   It would break me.  I'm better off being pissed, voting for people who have better sense, hoping they will ease the burden and restructuring my company at a disadvantage to me, my employees and my clients in the meantime.

It's the same ignorant, flawed logic as the $15 minimum wage.  Going to cost people jobs, inflate prices and wreck the economy.  But fools like Obama and Clinton can pat themselves on the back for "helping". 

Fucking idiots. 

[wesfau2]

It's a wonderful theory polluted, corrupted and co-opted by the political process. 

In real life it is next to impossible. 

Do you have any idea what it would cost me in legal fees to take up this fight?   It would break me.  I'm better off being pissed, voting for people who have better sense, hoping they will ease the burden and restructuring my company at a disadvantage to me, my employees and my clients in the meantime.

It's the same ignorant, flawed logic as the $15 minimum wage.  Going to cost people jobs, inflate prices and wreck the economy.  But fools like Obama and Clinton can pat themselves on the back for "helping". 

Fucking idiots.

To be clear...

You think that advocating for your rights directly (and there are provisions to recoup your fees/costs) is MORE futile than pledging your support to some blowhard and hoping that an organic change in the fundamental mechanics of our government happens?

O.


K.

[Kaos]

To be clear...

You think that advocating for your rights directly (and there are provisions to recoup your fees/costs) is MORE futile than pledging your support to some blowhard and hoping that an organic change in the fundamental mechanics of our government happens?

O.


K.

As a business owner?  Yes. 

Did you miss the part where I cannot afford the massive legal fees or the years long slog through the polluted and corrupt court system? 

I could drown my business in legal fees with no guarantee of recouping a dime of it should I lose.  That's a GREAT fucking option. 

Or I could vote for people I hope will understand and help me fix it.  Hmm.  Break my business or hope to find change?  Yeah. 

[wesfau2]

As a business owner?  Yes. 

Did you miss the part where I cannot afford the massive legal fees or the years long slog through the polluted and corrupt court system? 

I could drown my business in legal fees with no guarantee of recouping a dime of it should I lose.  That's a GREAT fucking option. 

Or I could vote for people I hope will understand and help me fix it.  Hmm.  Break my business or hope to find change?  Yeah.

Be a part of the solution or be part of the problem.

Shit in one hand and wish in the other...

You see where this is going.

[Snaggletiger]

There's common ground here.  Yes, an aggrieved citizen, with standing, would have to make the challenge.  But K is spot on in saying he'd have to risk everything on principal. Massive....astronomical legal fees with no guarantees of A.) Winning or...B.) The Court awarding fees and costs to be paid by the Defendant. 

Take the current case of the Tennessee Sheriff being sued by the Athiest Group over his pro-Christianity Easter message on the departments' Bookface page.  I don't post this for any religious debate, but only to point out that he's working on a countersuit, which wouldn't even be remotely possible without a national group defending religious freedom, taking up the case at no cost to the Sheriff.

Without backing, the average Joe has no recourse to fight something of this magnitude on his own. 

[Kaos]

Be a part of the solution or be part of the problem.

Shit in one hand and wish in the other...

You see where this is going.

You have shit in your hands.  That's what I got out of it.

[GH2001]

You have shit in your hands.  That's what I got out of it.

That's what I saw when I heard that we should quit our jobs and milk our assets dry to bring a suit to challenge the wand waving at the dept of labor. Yeah. Real feasible.

[Kaos]

That's what I saw when I heard that we should quit our jobs and milk our assets dry to bring a suit to challenge the wand waving at the dept of labor. Yeah. Real feasible.

Or burn my business to the ground, send all my employees to the unemployment office, lose any state or federal contracts I have, forfeit my house and truck, be unable to send my younger daughter to college and get on the government dole.   

That's the reality.   You don't tilt at windmills. 

 

[Townhallsavoy]

I could drown my business in legal fees with no guarantee of recouping a dime of it should I lose.  That's a GREAT fucking option. 

I'm no legal expert, but would this be one of those cases that says that you cannot countersue the government for money?

EDIT - Should note that suing the government is not the only to effect change. Protesting is another way. Unfortunately for business owners, there are less business owners getting hurt than there are management being helped. I'd like to also add that I don't see why this regulation is a bad thing.

[wesfau2]

I'm no legal expert, but would this be one of those cases that says that you cannot countersue the government for money?

You mean "sovereign immunity?"

I don't think the hypothetical lawsuit was a suit for a money damages, but rather a suit to have the executive order declared illegal.

[Saniflush]

You think that advocating for your rights directly (and there are provisions to recoup your fees/costs) is MORE futile than pledging your support to some blowhard and hoping that an organic change in the fundamental mechanics of our government happens?

and now we are back at the beginning where some dipshit who has never run anything remotely considered a business, has made a sweeping change without any thought or care of consequences.

[wesfau2]

and now we are back at the beginning where some dipshit who has never run anything remotely considered a business, has made a sweeping change without any thought or care of consequences.

Right...

So when congress passes a bullshit law, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.

If the President issues a bullshit exec order, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.

This is how our govt was designed.

[War Eagle!!!]

Right...

So when congress passes a bullshit law, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.

If the President issues a bullshit exec order, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.

This is how our govt was designed.

And the point is being made that the average guy can't do this. Although the "bullshit" law or executive order hurts the average guy.

[wesfau2]

And the point is being made that the average guy can't do this. Although the "bullshit" law or executive order hurts the average guy.

So, we're back to stomping our feet because the system that has been in place for 200+ years is daunting and we're just hoping that some reality-show lunatic will make things better all of the sudden?

It IS possible to challenge these orders, if you quit because the task is too difficult, then that's on you.

[Saniflush]

So, we're back to stomping our feet because the system that has been in place for 200+ years is daunting and we're just hoping that some reality-show lunatic will make things better all of the sudden?

It IS possible to challenge these orders, if you quit because the task is too difficult, then that's on you.

Don't disagree just impractical.

[wesfau2]

Don't disagree just impractical.

I agree that it's impractical...just not impossible.

Most court/litigation matters are impractical.

[Kaos]

So, we're back to stomping our feet because the system that has been in place for 200+ years is daunting and we're just hoping that some reality-show lunatic will make things better all of the sudden?

It IS possible to challenge these orders, if you quit because the task is too difficult, then that's on you.

It's not daunting, Wes.  It's financially ruinous for the vast majority of small businesses.  So we prevail on our congressmen and our lobbyists. 

I have a business to run. People who depend on me.  If I'm throwing all my money and my time at a challenge to an order my business fails and my people are unemployed.

It's not "too difficult".  If I had unlimited resources sure.  I don't.  I also work with the government.  I've seen how vindictive it can be.  The vast majority of the RFPs to which we respond contain language that requires that we are not engaged in any litigation.  If I'm the complaining party I know how that would be perceived. 


You really do live in fantasy island. 

[Snaggletiger]

You really do live in fantasy island.

Are you saying he's Tattoo?

[wesfau2]

It's not daunting, Wes.  It's financially ruinous for the vast majority of small businesses.  So we prevail on our congressmen and our lobbyists. 

Then do that.

Don't, however, elect a huckster in hopes that he'll somehow transform the system.