We need just ONE person to bring down Bush.

[Birthmark]

Anyone who lost a loved one due to dehydration in the days following Katrina may bring down Bush. They need only file a wrongful death suit. During the Clinton Administration the US Supreme Court ruled that a President may be sued civilly, no? Discovery would be real interesting, too.

It looks like a slam dunk to me - but I'm no attorney. But if I were an attorney...

[merwin]

1. Get each person to file a claim individually

[Birthmark]

20. I agree.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Class action suits for wrongful death and negligence.

Frivolous lawsuits? You haven't any idea what the inside of a tort looks like Mr. Bush.

[Tyranny_R_US]

5. Hey! Thats not nice to say about the first lady....

...Before you spineless wonders say 'I agree' I'm just kidding!

:rofl: good one no_hypocrisy

[longship]

6. Not Civil.... Criminal!!

Will this Friday be Fitzgerald's Day?
:shrug:

[Birthmark]

10. One thing at a time.

:)

[longship]

25. No, I want to see a pile-up.

It would be beautiful!!

[iamjoy]

3. Wouldn't Such A Suit Have To Include Blanco & Nagin

and all the local & state officials?

isn't that what happens in law suits, they name everyone they think they can get money from?

Oh, I hope a lawyer helps us here.

[Birthmark]

4. They might.

But I wouldn't mess with the little fish. The National Response Plan makes the case against Bush a sure thing.

[Wcross]

8. There was a top to bottom failure of government.

Local, State and federal government each have liability in this issue. I don't care what party the offenders are affiliated with. It was a total government failure from top to bottom.

[Birthmark]

11. Nope.

Only the Feds, more specifically Bush, could have ordered the military to make enough food and water drops to save lives. The mayor didn't have the power or the resources; neither did the Governor of Louisiana. ONLY the President has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to order military units to cut through the bureaucracy. He didn't do that.

The right-wing spin can't change that.

[Wcross]

13. I guess time will tell. n/t

[mcctatas]

18. I'm only a student, but I believe you can choose who you want to include

in the action.

[iamjoy]

44. I Guess "Have To" Is The Wrong Term

but traditionally, wouldn't a suit be against any party involved who may have any liability at all?

Anyway, if a suit is filed against Dubya/Federal govt you can be sure the local officials would get subpoenas.

[no_hypocrisy]

49. A plaintiff can choose his/her/their/its choice of defendant(s).

However, the defendant(s) can figure, "Hey, I didn't do this and if I did do this, I didn't do it alone." And then the defendant makes a cross-claim and brings in OTHER defendants to the suit. So it would feasible for * and Co. to make a cross-claim against the city, parish, and state and make them defendants (just for the purpose of apportioning the damages per rata).

[kestrel91316]

22. If I were doing the suing, I would only sue Republicans, just for spite.

[me b zola]

36. It wasn't Blanco or Nagin who REFUSED to allow water & food in

It was FEMA. After that crime against humanity, bush* continued to publically place faith in Micheal Brown.

No, this sits squarely on the executive office on down the federal response team.

[Wcross]

7. Is there a law that says the government must protect people?

Just curious. Is there legal precident that government is liable if it fails to respond promptly?

[Birthmark]

9. Yup. It is clearly the Feds responsibility.

It is in the National Response Plan. It leaves no option to allow people to die. This isn't a case of choosing whom to save. It is a case of saving virtually no one. Bush did nothing, when required to do so under the law - and more importantly to me - morally.

[Wcross]

12. I haven't had the opportunity to read it- have you a link? n/t

[Birthmark]

15. There was a nice thread about it.

It has many links, including one to the NRP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4675540

[Generic Other]

28. a very detailed and easy to follow explanation of Bush's responsibilities

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4668155

[Wcross]

55. Thanks Generic other!

That really does clear up that question. It is clear the federal government did not follow the plan and therefore has liability. It also explains why the removal and disposal of bodies will be done as descrete as possible. (hide the evidence)

[eleny]

14. No matter the result - the sausage making would be ugly

[Birthmark]

17. Allowing people to die is uglier.

[eleny]

40. I meant the very public legal process of dragging W thru mud

No matter the result of the case against the pres, the whole legal battle would make him look horrible. And I can hardly wait.

[jim3775]

16. Fitzgerald is working on it. Give him time. n/t

[Birthmark]

19. He's been working on it.

He needs to produce some results or give it to someone who can.

[jim3775]

29. Huh?

I'm pretty sure his record as a prosecutor shows that he can get results. Legal proceedings take time.

[Birthmark]

32. Yeah, but we're what...

...almost a year overdue. I understand that some of that delay was due to the reporters (co-conspirators) claiming "privilege." But the investigation is getting a little long in the tooth, no?

[Inland]

21. Forget about it. Sovereign immunity.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f071.htm

[Birthmark]

23. Really?

Then how did Paula Jones sue Clinton? Hmm?

[Inland]

26. Jones didn't sue Clinton for any action he took or didn't take as pres.

In fact, she sued him for an act taken before he was president.

[Birthmark]

38. Having looked up the Clinton v. Jones decision...

...it appears that you are correct. Thank you. :)

[berni_mccoy]

30. Doesn't that apply to the gov't, NOT the individual

Couldn't victims sue Bush as an individual who failed in his duty?

[Birthmark]

33. Sovereign immunity is not a blanket.

There are cases to which it applies and cases to which it doesn't. This subject really requires an attorney.

[Inland]

35. Can't get the individual any better.

Officials acting in their official capacities are also immune. You can think of it as sharing in the immunity, or you can think of it as the officials not owing any personal duties directly to the citizens.

[berni_mccoy]

45. So, according to this, a police officer who watches a murder happening

and does nothing to react would be immune (if the officer was part of the federal gov't). I don't buy it (yet).

[Inland]

56. Immune from private lawsuits. That's right.

In fact, there was a recent case where WI social workers simply failed to protect some children in some sort of dangerous home situation. No cause of action against them by the survivors.

Can't sue the government without the government's permission. The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, and suing the individual to get around that doesn't work either.

Otherwise, you would have seen it before today, right?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

24. I'm sure there are attorneys on DU so I will

Kick for an answer. Enquiring minds...

[RPM]

27. it took three to bring down kennedy... would one really be enough?

just kidding agent mike :hi:

[Mein Bush]

47. Actually it was three or four teams!

[riverwalker]

31. yes yes yes

Hopefully the parents of three babies that died of deydration and heat stroke at Convention Center.

[Seeking Serenity]

34. No good. President is immune from suit for official acts.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).

[Birthmark]

39. Yup.

I found that out while you were posting that, but thanks for the correction. :)

[Seeking Serenity]

43. Actually, thank my nominally Republican DH

I asked him, and he directed me to the case. Knew the case name right off . . . bastard.

:-)

[Richard Steele]

48. Official "acts", perhaps...but what about official "INACTION"???

A good lawyer could at least make a case that would require
some hearings...
And, as stated above, the sausage-making would be UGLY for the Blivet.

[Silverhair]

37. Nope. The POTUS can not be sued for actions taken as POTUS.

He can be sued for things he did BEFORE taking office. That's how Clinton was sued.

If a POTUS could be sued for actions taken as POTUS, the gov't would have been tangled in knots by lawsuits as soon as it was formed.

[Birthmark]

41. Thanks. I have been corrected.

Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

[kbm8795]

42. But..what about INACTION as POTUS?

I know it's a stretch. . .

[Silverhair]

46. Legally - no difference.

Not only that; legally the gov't has no duty to protect you from anything.

[ladylibertee]

50. Hmmmm....

Sounds interesting. me likey likes. ;)

[Birthmark]

51. But it's a no go.

I was informed I that the President couldn't be sued for official acts. After looking it up, it was easy to determine that that is correct.

My beautiful, beautiful plan is worthless. :(

[CJCRANE]

52. There needs to be a NO equivalent of Cindy Sheehan

(and a 9/11 equivalent too for that matter).

[Junkdrawer]

53. The Federal Government was sued over Waco...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A $675 million lawsuit stemming from the deaths of some 80 Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas, in 1993 goes to trial Monday.

The defendant is the federal government, which says it was justified in using armed force to end a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a Christian apocalyptic sect.

The plaintiffs are about 100 family members of the sect members who died, among whom were sect leader David Koresh and 17 children. The families allege the government used excessive force throughout the standoff, which began on February 28, 1993 and ended on April 19, 1993.

The wrongful-death case, to be heard in a Waco federal court by U.S. District Judge Walter Smith, will once again focus attention on the government's actions during the 1993 raid and standoff that made headlines around the world and led to congressional inquiries. Though the government was cleared of wrongdoing, critics have insisted it went too far.
....

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/16/wacotrial/

[Vinca]

54. These poor people deserve to sue for megabucks and

if the incompetent imbeciles in our government go down, all the better.