Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
From Snowflakes to Snakes
Everyone seems to want to get into the act when it comes to crippling Israel in its efforts to defeat Hamas. They all seem to think they are experts on warfare and genocide, and that compassion is the most important virtue when Hamas is involved. Now a lawsuit has been filed to try to stop the U.S. from shipping arms to Israel:
A group of Northern California residents has filed a class-action lawsuit against their congressional representatives, Democrats Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman, accusing them of causing harm to local communities and to Palestinians in Gaza by voting to send billions in US military aid to Israel.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in San Francisco federal court, claims the lawmakers caused ‘moral and emotional/psychic injury’ to taxpayers by voting for aid that, the plaintiffs allege, contributes to genocide in Gaza. Both Israel and the Biden administration reject that Israel is committing genocide in its war against Hamas in Gaza.
Where else could this possibly happen than in radical California? And only Californians would protest that they have been caused “moral and emotional/psychic injury” due to the U.S. efforts to help Israel fight for its very existence. I guess that the moral and psychic injury that the Israelis sustained on October 7 doesn’t count.
And the group that sued described the misery they have experienced as the Israelis were shipped arms:
The Bay Area case seeks to bar Thompson and Huffman from approving future military aid to Israel and demands damages for the emotional distress caused by war, including “uncontrollable weeping, inability to sleep, distractions from work, despair for the future of their children and humanity.”
Seriously? I think they were just a little lacking in hyperbole, don’t you?
Another lawsuit was filed that tried the same tactic, and failed but for incorrect reasons:
In a ruling in January, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oakland said there was strong evidence that Israel’s siege in Gaza ‘is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.’ But White said that foreign policy is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches of government’ and courts have neither the competence nor the authority to intervene. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling in July.
I suspect that Judge White knows something about the role of the courts, but he clearly knows nothing about the rules of genocide, and that Israel is not committing it. Thus, in this new suit, genocide is front and center.
But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this new suit came from one of the 21 plaintiffs:
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs include Norman Solomon, a veteran journalist and political commentator who lives in Huffman’s district.
Solomon said at Thursday’s press conference that Huffman has ‘repeatedly said he is helping to ship military aid to Israel in part because he opposes antisemitism. As a Jewish American I find that rationale disgusting.’
Excuse me? Mr. Solomon is one of those naïve Jews who can’t see anti-Semitism when it hits him in the face. Just what is he saying? What is disgusting about a person claiming he wants to send funds to Israel because he opposes anti-Semitism?
I suggest that Mr. Solomon and his co-plaintiffs take a closer look at their own motives in trying to hamstring the Israelis who just happen to be Jews.
Their motives may not be so pure.
[Originally published at American Thinker, Dec. 26, 2024, under the title “Attacking Israel in the Courts”]
Published in General
Maybe jews should file a suit claiming that the plaintiff’s support for people who rape, torture, and murder jews causes them severe emotional distress . . .
That would be here.
(Way to go, Susan!)
Where do the rest of us go to file a countersuit for the emotional distress caused by listening to their bilge?
Works for me!
I wish. It’s so pathetic.
Sue your congress critters because of the way they voted on a specific bill? If these folks win, it will be one more reason for good people to avoid public service.
There should be sanctions for filing a bogus lawsuit. Even if the claim were true, how do a bunch of California liberals have standing? Obama and Biden gave billions to Iran to be used to slaughter people all across the Middle East. Does a consortium of Ricochetti have standing to sue?
Ah, but it’s California, dontcha know…
If it’s California, doesn’t the Anti-SLAPP legislation get invoked? If someone is suing you in such a way as to limit your First Amendment rights, you can make a motion to the judge to have the suit bounced out of court.
Of course, that leaves it up to a judge. A California judge. Who just might be an idiot. Maybe they tried and got denied.
I can’t imagine this suit getting too far. But it is a form of lawfare — politics dressed up as a legal claim. It will have its intended effect which is to put pressure on the target. If it has a measure of success against the Congressman expect to see it become part of the political tool kit. The plaintiffs had to bring it as a class action since we don’t have direct democracy. But how are they going to establish the class?
Current complaint and docket:
https://krcrtv.com/resources/pdf/5229fd40-af7e-4399-b135-18ff69c32506-Complaint12192024.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69482888/donnelly-v-thompson/
Docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68000231/defense-for-children-international-palestine-v-biden/
Opinion and docket for its 9th Circuit appeal:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/15/24-704.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69123522/defense-for-children-international-palestine-et-al-v-biden-et-al/
Congresscritters enjoy immunity from legal action relating to their official duties.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013300/
He does know about the role of the courts, but he violated that and should be impeached for lack of good behavior.
On a motion to dismiss, the court typically will state that, for purposes of the motion, it accepts the factual allegations of the non-moving party. It does not affirmatively make findings of their merit. From his own order:
Thus, his proceeding to this rant was inappropriate:
Here the 9th Circuit noted that this applies particularly strongly in a subject matter jurisdiction case:
The judge is a George W. Bush appointee with a record of left wing activism. He was and remains on senior status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_White
Thanks for elaborating, CT. And everyone should know that CT was the one who told me about this insane situation.
I think congress needs to write the law to make it work that way. Otherwise, by default Ricochet probably doesn’t have such standing.
I don’t know that for a fact, though.
God no. We would need to expand the federal judiciary ten-fold if every American had standing to sue for every dumb policy action, bad law or stupid reg on the basis of its relative dumbness rather than on statutory or constitutional grounds. Elections are supposed to be the cure for bad law and policy, not enlightened judicial intervention.
That’s probably why it’s something that’s only done for leftwing causes, and not so often even then.