Katherine Mangu-Ward Talks Happy Meal Toys and Lawsuits on Fox Business Network

Reason Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward appeared on Fox Business to talk about the lawsuit over McDonald's Happy Meal toys that was thrown out by a California judge. She says that even though this is one good step away from the nanny state, there is still a long way to go in combating the food police. 

About 3 minutes.

Comments

[Pound. Head. On. Desk.]

Halle-frickin'-lujah! Even a California judge can find a blind squirrel's nut once in a while!

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Not necessarily a good thing, sexual harassment laws being what they are.

[Karl Hungus]

And a San Francisco judge, no less.

Still, unless he ordered the crazy bitch that filed this thing to pay McD's court costs and attorney fees, then isn't as happy a story as it could be.

[Sevo]

"Still, unless he ordered the crazy bitch that filed this thing to pay McD's court costs and attorney fees, then isn't as happy a story as it could be."

Wasn't only her, it was filed by "The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C."
I'll presume the "science" involved here is related to the process by which the PR firm that selected the name.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....206D96.DTL

[tarran]

Like the Holy Roman Empire neither being Holy, Roman or an Empire, the Center for Science in the Public Interest is not a center, doesn't promote science, and advocates for many things (including the widespread adoption of trans-fats in the 1980's) that are not in the public interest.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

really? that's awesome. i have a friend who is constantly pushing the anti-GMO line and citing CSPI etc.

do you have a link or something for the trans-fat thing?

that would be very helpful. she is a true believer in CSPI, so i'd love to show her that they have a far more dubious history than even i thought in regards to supporting acscientific nonsense.

heck, udo erasmus knew loooong before the 1980's the dangers of transfats.

[R C Dean]

Cases like this are why there is a rule that allows judges to impose sanctions on the attorney that brings a frivolous case, by making the attorney pay the other side's costs.

Too bad its never done.

[Karl Hungus]

Cases like this are why there is a rule that allows judges to impose sanctions on the attorney that brings a frivolous case, by making the attorney pay the other side's costs.

I was gonna say, there should be some means by which an attorney can be sanctioned/censured for filing frivolous lawsuits. I guess it really isn't used if I didn't even know it existed.

Why wouldn't something like this be used? There's got to be plenty of judges out there that detest lawsuits like this.

[R C Dean]

Why wouldn't something like this be used?

Not sure. Professional courtesy? The fact that the plaintiff's bar donates massive amounts to judicial elections?

This rule, at the federal level anyway, is here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11

Not bad, as written, and considering the source. I'm sure most state rules have something very similar.

[mr simple]

Ugh, that woman talked like she had a mouth full of marbles as she slumped over in her chair. She couldn't even say Mangu correctly. How can anyone watch her entire show?

[np]

For the lovely guest she was talking to of course

[MorinJulio]

my best friend's step-aunt brought in $15774 a week ago. she makes money on the laptop and got a $370300 home. All she did was get lucky and put into action the steps given on this link (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/2bRgO