Typical Republicanism - Andrew Giuliani Style

Andrew Giuliani, the 22 year old son of disgraced former mayor Rudy a noun a verb 9/11 Giuliani, is suing Duke University.  Giuliani, soon to be a senior at Duke, was dismissed by the school's golf team.  Giuliani's lawsuit seeks access to Duke's state of the art facility and seeks damages because the new golf coach at Duke has allegedly hurt Giuliani's chances of becoming a professional golfer.  Giuliani is also claiming "breach of contract" because Duke changed golf coaches after his sophomore year.  If all you guys out there who are 5 foot 3 or under want to sue your parents for genetically hindering your aspirations to make the NBA, you may want to speak with Andrew Giuliani.

Here are some facts on this golf matter.

1.  Giuliani's scoring average is 12th best on his own team.  

2.  His best finish last year was 36th place at the Fighting Illini Invitational.  I can not confirm or deny that at least 37 people entered this tournament.

3.  In college golf you usually only take 5 golfers to tournaments.  The Duke coach wants to carry 7 golfers and Giuliani is the 12th best on the team.

4.  Giuliani is suing for breach of contract.  The coach who recruited Giuliani passed away last year.

Once again this highlights certain "rules" of Republicans.

1.  Create a society which rewards lesser able, lesser qualified right wing Republicans over better qualified others.

2.  If you can’t earn something fair and square, have government create unfair policies that give you that something over others who are more meritorious or better qualified.

3.  Lawsuits are bad unless Republicans are the plaintiffs.

4.  If things don't go your way, whine and cry like a spoiled brat.

Like father like son.  The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  In fact one of the reasons why he was kicked off the team was because Andrew threw an apple at one of his teammates. (Can't make this up.)  Temper, temper.  

•  tip jar

  by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM PDT

  •  Daddy, I want a pony! And,

    I want it NOW!

    by David Kroning on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM PDT

    •  Okay, Okay, Here's your damn pony.

      Now stop holding your breath, Andrew.

      by Treg on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM PDT

      •  Andrew...

        

        by Lava20 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM PDT

        •  .

          

          by Eternal Hope on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:52:50 PM PDT

  •  Bravo

    Thanks for bringing this important issue to our attention. What a spoiled brat...is this the "whining" McCain was talking about?

    An excellent example of why we need tort reform.

    by BraveheartDC on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM PDT

    •  10 McCain Points

      A.  For downplaying an issue with the false logic that an issue shouldn't be brought to people's attention because there is something more important.  (Yes, many more important issues than thi.  Heck, maybe Kos will limit his site to 1 diary for the entire site all day because the 2nd best diary is not important.

      B.  It's not tort reform, it's tort regression.  As you are well aware, the system has mechanisms in place which make parties that bring frivolous actions responsible for the costs.  If you want to argue that this should be enforced more often, you have an ally in me.

      But GOP "tort reform" is designed to keep LEGITIMATE litigants out of court by protecting wrongdoers.

      by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:53:37 PM PDT

      •  Geez

        I rec'd your diary, and your tip jar! And I agreed that the Guiliani kid sounds like a brat!

        Tort reform is another issue, but surely I don't deserve McCain points for that! I'm tempted to give you some McClinton™ point for false attack, but I'll leave it alone.

        Geez...I'll see you around the internets!  Later. :)

        by BraveheartDC on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM PDT

        •  very clever

          You just recced the diary 5 minutes after you posted the other comment.

          Nevertheless, I appreciate it.

          by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM PDT

          •  No problem....

            ...anyway, I have enough points now.

            I'm taking my steak knives and going home. :)

            Have a good weekend.

            by BraveheartDC on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM PDT

        •  On Tort Regression

          Perhaps you should write a diary putting forth your views.  I'll put forth mine as I do on almost every issue.

          1.  Frivolous lawsuits should be dissuaded.  Those who file them pay the costs.

          2.  Absent the rarest exceptions, the trier of facts should determine damages.  Arbitrary caps are big govt intrusiveness.  The people in the courtroom generally know best.  They can view the witnesses, determine credibility, etc...

          3.  The timelines for lawsuits should be sped up.  Too often, municipalities and corporations can drag out suits with delays, delays, and delays.

          4.  There are too many lawsuits that get dismissed at summary judgment that shouldn't.  Very often this is a case of "clearing the calendar" because there isn't enough time in the day to adjudicate all matters.  Reform is needed in this area.

          5.  Reforms are needed in giving poorer litigants better access to our courts so that the wealthy just can't "litigate" and "motion" them out of the suit.

          I could go on for hours.

          An interesting fact.  More than 95% of all lawsuits filed do NOT go to trial.  You know that, I know that, most non lawyers don't.

          by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:14:10 PM PDT

          •  Actually...

            These are sensible suggestions for the most part.  Comments below:

              1.   Frivolous lawsuits should be dissuaded.  Those who file them pay the costs.

            Absolutely.  But remember, it's the judge who determines what's frivolous.  Frivlous claims should not be allowed to go to trial. But we need some kind of criteria. Most frivolous (though not all) cases are dispensed with a motion to dismiss. Such motions should be done w/ prejudice, and yes, those who bring the suit should pay costs.

              2.  Absent the rarest exceptions, the trier of facts should determine damages.  Arbitrary caps are big govt intrusiveness.  The people in the courtroom generally know best.  They can view the witnesses, determine credibility, etc...

            Disagree here. Juries (who are often the trier of fact) are too easily persuaded by emotion.  I thin the trier of law (the Judge) should determine damages. Or if it is the jury, the judge should retain the right to adjust the damages.

              3.  The timelines for lawsuits should be sped up.  Too often, municipalities and corporations can drag out suits with delays, delays, and delays.  Agreed.

              4.  There are too many lawsuits that get dismissed at summary judgment that shouldn't.  Very often this is a case of "clearing the calendar" because there isn't enough time in the day to adjudicate all matters.  Reform is needed in this area.

            This kind of contradicts points 1 & 3, above.  The courts are over burdened.  If we don't "clear the calender", then we need more judges, more courtrooms, etc.  Dismissal via summary judgment is a high standard to meet..I'm not sure if this is the problem you think it is.  Mostly (though there are some exceptions), it's the meritless and frivolous cases that get dismissed.  Before you give me anecdotal evidence to the contrary, again, I know there are exceptions.

              5.  Reforms are needed in giving poorer litigants better access to our courts so that the wealthy just can't "litigate" and "motion" them out of the suit.

            Agree completely. Both our civil and criminal systems favor wealthy individuals to a large degree. This has to change.  We fail as a nation if justice is only for the wealthy.

            All these reforms, like everything else in our legal system, depend on an independent judiciary and integrity of our Judges. Without that real reform is not possible.

            by BraveheartDC on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM PDT

            •  Responding

              See this kind of civil dialogue on substance is most useful.  On this issue we don't appear to be far off.

              As for #2 - I think it is generally the role of the jury (assuming the jury is also the trier of fact) to determine the damages.  This is not an absolute.  There should be mechanisms in place to reduce a jury's verdict and damages awarded but it should NOT be an arbitrary cap.  Reducing a jury verdict (or increasing it) should be a RARE instance only for the most egregious of circumstances with the legal standard VERY high.  The idea of an arbitrary cap (ex - Medical malpractice) is absurd.  Each case is different.  One size fits all govt rarely works.

              As for #4 I could provide many concrete examples but feel it would be inappropriate to do so (in most instances) for reasons you may surmise.  The courts ARE overburdened and the solution would be more judges and more courtrooms built to handle this burden instead of "clearing the calendar."

              Just let me say that by reading many a case out there and watching many a proceeding, I have seen too many cases dismissed on summary judgment when indeed there were triable issues of fact.  This is most common in medical malpractice suits where the legal system is rigged in favor of doctors who screw up.

              by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

              •  Well

                Well, I don't know which issues we agree and disagree on because we really don't discuss "issues". I think our disagreements are on tactics and overall philosophy.

                Agree on #2...no arbitrary caps.  But the judge should have discretion of adjusting awards that are clearly out of line. So we agree on this.

                Clearly, there is a battle w/ regards to tort reform. Republican lawmakers and corporations want caps and reform which favor their interests.

                But you have to remember, the single biggest contributor to the democratic party is....trial lawyers. Trail lawyers want reforms that favor their interests. And they also represent a big part of the problem.  Take your point about unreasonable delays and continences.  These delays hurt the client...but are quite good for the trial lawyers, who charge by the hour often (but not always).  Trials lawyers, I'm sorry to say, are a BIG part of this problem.  If you take a step back, I think you'd have to agree.

                by BraveheartDC on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM PDT

                •  as a whole - No

                  Might there be some who abuse the system?  Of course.

                  But the cases we are talking about are usually (not always) contingency cases.

                  And remember, corporations and municipalities have trial lawyers too.  I don't hear the GOP complaining about them.

                  as for #2 - yes it would have to be a case of so clearly out of line - perhaps a standard of outrageous, shocks the conscious, etc... along those lines.  Yet tremendous and near absolute deference (not absolute) should be given to juries on this issue.

                  by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:34:01 PM PDT

    •  No, we really DON'T need tort reform.

      We need to allow judges plenty of discretion to look at the merits of a case and dismiss them when it's appropriate.

      by camlbacker on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM PDT

  •  He really ought to be suing his golf coach

    The fact that he can't break par consistently is probably a bigger obstacle to his becoming a pro golfer than his dismissal from the college team.

    by wiscmass on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM PDT

  •  Whatever Andrew's doing now,

    I'll always appreciate the way he and his sister helped stick a fork in their father's presidential candidacy.

    Remember that a year ago, Rudy! was practically the presumptive nominee, with a double-digit lead over his closest rival.

    And the self-styled hero of 9/11 was on your buddy Hannity's show several times a week.

    Giuliani ran a historically clumsy campaign on every level, but that he was not on speaking terms with his kids cannot have helped him with Republican primary voters.

    So I won't dump on Andrew now; the NYC tabloids can do that well enough without me, or others on DKos.

    With a father like that, Andrew's surely suffered enough.

    by devtob on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:57:40 PM PDT

•  Andrew then sued God, inventor of apples.

  by BA BarackUS on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget Eve - if she hadn't eaten that first

    apple, none of this would have happened.

    by Chrispy67 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM PDT

•  Thanks for posting this

  I heard about it this morning and I'm glad you brought it up.

  The other part of the story is that apparently the young Giuliani acted like a complete ass.

  Gee, I knew I went to Duke to become a professional golfer. It's so well known for that, after all. Who can I sue?

  BTW, according to what I read, his father is apparently not involved in this; so much for sympathy for the much 'aggrieved' Ms. Hanover.

  by stitchmd on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM PDT

•  One can assume that when he doesn't make

  the PGA Tour right away - Andrew will sue them as well. Correct??

  by Nadnerb in NC on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM PDT

  •  it's possible that Andrew

    will lobby the government to change the rules of qualifying for the PGA by having him take the place of someone who qualifies by passing a law that says that the PGA must allow 1 spot for a son of a former mayor.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM PDT

    •  LOL!!!

      Wow!  Great diary Dave.

      I want to be a Republican!  I am going to sue 24 Hour Fitness.  They need to reserve one step machine close to the television with MSNBC on for the daughter of a librarian who was born in Chicago but raised in Las Vegas!

      If not:
      

      by Lava20 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:53:02 PM PDT

•  The Complaint

  is apparently 198 pages long.  Most lawyers think one thing when they see a 198 page lawsuit: "Loser."  This isn't even a complex commercial litigation case involving massive corporate entities with reams of documents.  A good rule of thumb in law is that if the lawyer is taking pages and pages to make his argument, it's probably BS.

  by rameyko on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM PDT

•  I don't suppose this is the fault

  of the dreaded trial lawyers?

  by marykk on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM PDT

  •  They are only trial lawyers

    when they represent average people and Democrats - so scary and slimy. When they represent Republicans, they are are "counsel" - so warm and fuzzy.

    by Treg on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:01:28 PM PDT

•  reminds me of when

  Robert Bork filed a personal injury lawsuit after falling down some steps.  Except that young Guiliani's lawsuit appears to be a lot more frivolous than that one, or the vast majority of lawsuits Republicans would ban or limit under the banner of "tort reform."

  But if he wins, I'm suing everyone who ever picked me last :)

  by mcfly on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM PDT

  •  Time to sue my Little League Coach

    who batted me last in the lineup.

    Then again I was a tiny, scrawny kid who couldn't hit the ball that far but by batting me 9th instead of 3rd, he ruined my chances of making the Yankees.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM PDT

  •  Nature v. Nurture? Is whiney brattitude in the

    genes? Or in the jeans?! You decide.

    Aloha   ..  ..  ..

    by dolphin777 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:01:22 PM PDT

•  sounds like veruca salt to me.

  by rasbobbo on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:55:26 PM PDT

•  Hey, Dave!

  Good to see you in Austin. Always a pleasure to chat...

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM PDT

  •  As always

    Great to talk to you.  A pleasure as always.  At some time we'll get together in NY when schedules permit.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM PDT

•  He did not support his father

  I wouldn't be surprised if he supported Obama like his sister did going back to the primaries.

  And this whole fiasco may not even be an indictment of Republicans, even though it does sound ludicrous.

  As far as Duke athletics go, I'm more disappointed that some of the UNindicted lacrosse players wanted to sue the ENTIRE school and the ENTIRE city of Durham rather than the ones known to be responsible.  Doesn't it sort of defeat the purpose of things to punish innocent bystanders...in response to punishing innocent bystanders (i.e. the original fiasco?)  Genesis 18:26-32 comes to mind.

  by BlueEngineerInOhio on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM PDT

  •  tougher one

    If employees of an enterprise or municipality do the damage, the enterprise or municipality is responsible for their behavior.

    The solution for corporations, municipalities, etc.. to avoid such lawsuits is often very simple.

    HIRE BETTER PEOPLE.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM PDT

    •  So why should every single

      Durham resident pony up more property taxes to make up the difference when only Nifong, the police department, and the hospital messed up?

      And why should every single Duke student foot the bill for the 88 professors and the administration by paying higher tuition?

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:05:17 PM PDT

      •  because

        1.  It is up to the citizens of Durham to elect better people.

        2.  It is up to the people of Duke to find better people.  Otherwise, don't go there.

        If you can't hold the municipality accountable, then you will encourage abuses at a voluminous level beyond that which already exists.

        Forcing the municipality to pay up sends a message to get their act in order.

        by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:57:47 PM PDT

•  But Rethugs oppose quotas and special rights!!!

  Wait a minute!  The Rethugs keep railing against affirmative action, which supposedly sets artificially high quotas for minority groups and disregards merit.  The Rethugs also keep railing against "special rights" for homosexuals while conveniently ignoring the fact that heterosexuals can take these "special rights" for granted.

  So why can't Andrew Giuliani compete in college golf on the basis of his performance?  And where did he get the idea that college golfers are entitled to go to the pros?  I thought that in every sport, very few of the college athletes actually make it to the pros.  Just compare the number of pro basketball, baseball, and football players to the much larger groups of their peers who didn't make it.  And even those few who do make it to the pros have to find a different career after only a few years anyway.  We don't see Jack Kemp playing for the Bills anymore or Bill Bradley playing for the Knicks.

  by jhsu on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM PDT

  •  They are only opposed to special treatment...

    ...that isn't applied to them, or is available to ordinary people.

    A typical example is a wingnut acquaintance of mine who rails about "socialism" but was quick to collect unemployment when he lost his job.

    by Mr Tentacle on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:40:44 PM PDT

  •  Cons always support quotas and affirmative action

    Company A - Republican
    Company B - not Republican

    Company B is better able to do the job.  Company A lobbies govt to give Company A contract that should go to Company B.  

    Company A - Republican
    Company B - Not Republican

    Company A wants to rent office space in City C
    Company B wants to rent office space in City C.

    Company B will pay fair market value.
    Company A will have govt subsidize the rent as a tax abatement.

    Child A - Republican
    Child B - Not Republican

    Child A thinks govt should spend $20,000 a year on his education but only $5,000 a year on child B.  Then when child B performs just as well as child A after 13 years of being at a financial disadvantage, child A wants to be admitted to college C over child B.

    Gosh this has got to be a diary.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM PDT

•  ummm....

  Nowhere in those articles is Andrew Giuliani's political affiliation mentioned.  It's well know that the Giuliani children don't like their father and refused to campaign for him.  And his sister is an Obama supporter and self-procliamed liberal. And Andrew doesn't seem to have a lot of good things to say about Dad

  I'm not saying Andrew Giuliani's not a brat, but why are you assuming he's a Republican? I think this diary makes some pretty silly assumptions, and should probably be retracted. Is Andrew Giuliani some kind of major political figure?

  by Frenchy Lamour on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM PDT

•  Not much to do with anything.

  Him suing has little to do with his father.  To There is no evidence that he even is a Republican.  Given the bitterness over the way his mother was publicly humiliated by Rudy who knows how long it has been since his father "raised" him in a meaningful way.  Only thing we do know is his sister evidently liked Obama.

  He's a private citizen who had a gripe and sued.   Perhaps over something silly.  That is all.

  by Taget on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM PDT