Is it not a legal principle that for every wrong there is a remedy?

[Stinky The Clown]

If we now have criminal convictions showing that the pivitol ohio 2004 recount was not just faulty, but criminally faulty, how do we right that wrong?

Am I mistaken to think that we have, at least theoretically, a constitutional crisis? If the recount was wrong, and was done through criminal action and not simple negligence, how do we rectify the fact that President Kerry is not now seated? How do we remedy the wrong that is a President Bush?

Is it not a legal principle that for every wrong there is a remedy?

[Hosnon]

1. Not exactly.

For every legally recognized wrong there is a remedy.

I can't sue you for breaking my heart.:)

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Would not criminal convictions for fucking with the vote recount in Cuyahoga County ....

.... be effectively 'legally recognized' wrongs?

[Hosnon]

3. Possibly.

I just wanted to add that qualification.

[Ian David]

5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Loss of consortium. Breach of contract.

Somewhere, there MUST be a lawyer who would take THAT case.

[Hosnon]

7. I wasn't implying that there is no legally recognized wrong in this situation.

Only that not every wrong is actionable.

[eyesroll]

8. In most states, personal relationships are NOT resolvable in court.

It's not that there isn't emotional distress/loss of consortium/etc. -- it's just the courts, though centuries of common law, have determined it's against public policy and would open the floodgates of litigation if they were to allow lawsuits that solely concern interpersonal emotional relationships. (We actually studied this in Contracts -- sure, an accepted promise to go on a date can be considered an oral contract, but it's not legally enforceable for the above reasons.)

So, lawyers won't take the case because it'd get thrown out automatically and the lawyer could even be sanctioned for wasting the court's time.

You can, however, try to sue to get an engagement ring (which is considered by most jurisdictions to be a conditional gift) back, or to get actual personal property back, or evict the heartbreaker from your apartment, or to get a restraining order, or perhaps to recoup expenses if a relationship partner actually defrauded you...but you can't just sue because you got dumped. That's just a normal fact of life.

[Ian David]

9. That's both useful and comforting to know. Thanks! n/t

[Hosnon]

10. And if a man wants to make sure that the ring remains a conditional gift,

he should be sure to not say something like:

"I'm officially broke. I hope you don't expect any good gifts in the near future. This counts as your Christmas/Birthday/Anniversary present for the next few years."

That can turn it into a gift.

[eyesroll]

11. Yup. :D

Do your friends tell you things like "christ, you suck all of the life out of everything" too?

:D

[Hosnon]

12. Not anymore. Now they think I am

a judge or something and can cure all of their legal ills.

3L.

[TygrBright]

4. But the "remedy" is not required to undo the wrong.

That is, if I commit an act of arson that destroys a building, the law cannot implement a "remedy" that replaces that building. They can throw me in jail, but not make me rebuild the building.

sadly,
Bright

[eyesroll]

6. Correct. "Remedy" doesn't necessarily mean specific performance.

(Whee! Civ Pro last week!)

If you burn down a building, the court can throw you in jail, fine you, and/or order restitution -- but that's money. The court can't order you to physically rebuild the building. The court can't order something that's impossible or so infeasible it might as well be.

Likewise, even if there is a constitutional issue that calls the election of President Bush into question*, a remedy of removing President Bush and installing President Kerry would be (a) questionable, at best, constitutionally; (b) really messy and disruptive (do we remove all of his judicial appointments and void all of the bills he signed too?); and (c) many would argue it's not really in the country's best interest at this point because of (b). So I can't imagine any court, even a SCOTUS with nine liberals on it, would order Bush removed.

*and I don't think the issue is on a U.S. onstitutional level -- people don't have the right to vote for President here; we vote for electors, who are not constitutionally bound to vote for who they say they will vote for, nor are they constitutionally bound to vote for the person who got the most votes, and in that sense the Electoral College properly voted for and elected President Bush; it's a state-level fuckup but I don't think there's a federal remedy.

Anyhow: "Remedies" could really mean just about anything...if a lawyer messes up, a letter of admonishment (no fine, no loss of license) can suffice as a remedy. I would suspect (even though I haven't taken remedies and as a 1L I'm often talking out of my ass on this), if a court found significant criminal wrongdoing in Ohio, the criminals could go to jail (there are laws and prescribed remedies for interfering with voting) but there wouldn't be much else. If it didn't rise to criminal levels, a letter with "bad, negligent Ohio, shame on you!" might be about it.