| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (35)

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:34AM CaptainProtonX said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Don't worry, the tax payers will pay. That's why government always creates these BS battles. If they lose, they never lose a dime.

You, the tax payer, will see a 1 cent increase in your property taxes.

Have a nice day.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:36AM shinjix2 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@CaptainProtonX

Yup, that or it will never be paid because California will go bankrupt first.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:45AM Skorpeyon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@CaptainProtonX Sadly that's the case. If only our elected officials were paid/penalized the same way a normal employee would be perhaps they'd stop being so idiotic. The REAL fun is that in many cases they continue to get paid by the taxpayers once they retire from being a piss-poor "employee".
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:52AM Hunter141072 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@CaptainProtonX


Well, now i know what Arnold means with "hasta la vista baby" that was the taxes of the the people who was stupid enough to vote for him.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:29AM DreadArrow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CaptainProtonX
Technically the money will come out of their budget, so they will have to pay for it. And you'll never guess where their budget comes from...
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:48AM dakoe3 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@DreadArrow
Drug Money?
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:56AM Faceless Troll said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@dakoe3 Illegal immigrants.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 12:08PM CaptainProtonX said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@DreadArrow

Jesus?
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 4:02PM Hunter141072 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Hunter141072

And judging for my down-vote there were a lot of idiots who voted for him :D
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 5:48PM killerjuice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hunter141072

Lol what are you talking about? The reason you were down voted is because you made no sense."Hasta la vista" = until later / see you later. We're joking that California will raise taxes which is the complete opposite of what you're saying. If anything the "baby" in "hasta la vista, baby" should be the taxpayer's paychecks.
Reply

Posted: Jul 26th 2011 12:44PM TX2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@killerjuice
@Hunter141072
Or it might have to do with the fact that Jerry Brown is the governor of California
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:34AM Xero Theory said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Get em. I don't think the ESA should or will get the whole cost back, especially in the face of California's debt issues. But, I think they should be reimbursed some what since the bill was such a weak attempt in the first place (proven by the judges easily striking it down).

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:27PM qrack said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Xero Theory
If they reinburse the ESA, the funds SHOULD be offset by pulling money from the paychecks of every legislator who voted for the law in the first place. It was their stupidity that led to the lengthy court battle...it should be them who foot the bill.

Maybe I'll start a petition to get a ballot initiative put together that does just that....or forget about it and just go play more games.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:35AM baby sea tuna said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
SCOTUS? Yup, still funny. Tee-hee!

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 10:56AM EvilCartographer said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
California can't even afford to pay it's own employees. The odds of winning this battle AND getting a check are pretty poor.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:01AM SEAL PUP85 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
The taxpayers should not be burdened with this!!! The state is already strapped for cash as it is!!!

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:10AM Scuffles said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
..... maybe just maybe it will teach the Tax payers a lesson and make them more considerate of who they vote for in the future.

And because of that lesson, maybe just maybe politicians will think twice before they push a blatantly unconstitutional law for what appears to be little more than winning a few extra votes next term.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:19AM aristokrat said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@SEAL PUP85
Yep. Politicians are merely representatives of the majority will (right?), so Californians implicitly voted for this court case, and now they have to fit the bill. They should have been complaining when it was first written and drafted, not just now that they've lost.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:48AM Altairio said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@SEAL PUP85

Stop electing idiots and allowing them to pass unconstitutional laws then.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 3:55PM Kougeru said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Scuffles Touche'. best post I've read on here lol
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:32PM qrack said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Scuffles
The problem is, it doesn't matter WHO they vote for. All politicians do the same thing. If it suits their purpose or if it'll win them political points, they'll push whatever unconstitutional crap they can in order to prove that they're trying to do their job. Make the politicians foot the bill. THEN you'll see them becoming a little more considerate as to whether political points are worth the hit to their paycheck.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:01AM CaptainSnaps said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Good for the ESA. Though it sucks for the people of California, this is just another demonstration of why they should seriously reconsider their voting habits. It's politicians pushing shit like this with no regard for who will ultimately foot the bill that have taken one of the strongest economies in the world and bankrupt it. Paying this back is not the greatest of worries for California.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:03AM Scuffles said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Maybe the state should have thought about that before it went out of its way to burden the taxpayers in the first place ...... Hmmmmm?

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:21AM radioactivez0r said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Blaming the voters seems like an odd thing to do, commenters. Sure, they (we? I do live here now) may not always make great decisions, but we aren't the ones actually spending this money.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:23AM Faceless Troll said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It's a real shame there's no "loser pays" law in the US. Then these kind of frivolous lawsuits might be avoided.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:38AM FriedConsole said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I am not a lawyer but from all the episodes of People's Court I know you can't sue for legal fees. I would be all for this if I thought it would prevent stupid laws but it won't really have an effect on a lawmaker trying something similar again.

The ESA is a lobby organization of big video game publishers. They can afford it. I just paid $60 for Duke Nukem Forever. Use that money instead of tax money.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:41AM PointlessPuppies said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@FriedConsole

"I am not a lawyer but from all the episodes of People's Court I know you can't sue for legal fees."

Wow. Just...wow.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 11:58AM Bridget said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@FriedConsole The People's Court, and other shows like it, are meant to simulate a small claims court. Getting paid legal fees is rare in small claims because people don't generally hire lawyers. You represent yourself. So the people on the show who attempt to sue for legal fees are usually denied because that's not something you're supposed to do.

This is, obviously, not a small claims court. It's the Supreme Court.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 12:41PM Faceless Troll said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Bridget Er, the People's Court was a real small claims court. They just televised the trials.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 12:50PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@FriedConsole

In the US, you are right that by default litigant's pay their own fees and costs, but they can be shifted based on certain statutes and certain suits that are not "substantially justified."

That's what the ESA is going for here - that California had no constitutional claim and was merely racking up court fees by taking it to the Court. There are two main problems with this: (1) the Court took the case, so the justices thought it had some legal merit, and (2) there was a "good faith" argument for extending the law beyond what it was.

So yeah, ESA will probably lose this one.
Reply

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 1:07PM religiousjedi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Gee, thanks Arnold for leaving me with the check...

(Just like Octomom.)

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 2:15PM ftank1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not to pick political sides, but that state is already hemorraging money partially because of liberal dipshits run amok. I know it's wishful thinking because noone calling those shots is playing with their own money, but hopefully this will teach them to worry about more important things than having to pass stupid-ass laws that force big brother to take care of us rather than our own damn selves

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 2:37PM darksied said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
... and a personal apology from Schwarzenegger for being a dick and wasting everyone's time.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 4:06PM Garst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm quite certain that this falls under Sovereign Immunity statute. And finding a law unconstitutional isn't enough to get around that.

Posted: Jul 25th 2011 4:35PM applefleas said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All I can say about this article is this: lame.....................................................................

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW