Great evening joining Judge Laura on Fox News Channel’s Ingraham Angle last night to “try” two newsy cases:
Should American vets be free to fly American flags on flagpoles in their yards if their homeowners association prohibits all flags on flagpoles (but allow flags displayed on home mounts) in an even-handed way?
Should adults children be able to sue their parents because they did not consent to being born?
One of the best things about these types of segments is meeting friendly new people like Scott Bolden of Reed Smith in DC.
—
INGRAHAM: And now a man and his flag. The Sun News reports that an Air Force vet is suing his HOA board for deny him the right to fly an American flag on a freestanding poll. The board saying the flag would “quickly dominate the appearance” of the neighborhood but that smaller flags are OK and that it’s trying to avoid a: who has the largest flagpole or best flagpole contest.
BOLDEN: Your Honor, this is about patriotism, it is about a South Carolina statute that is a carve out that specifically talks about homeowners associations that says if it’s portable, if it’s reasonable, and removable then that’s a carve out and he can have his flagpole in his yard. That makes sense he’s a veteran. What beautification or negative beautification could there be for the Association if the flag dominated?
TROTTER: Everyone is sympathetic to American’s right to proudly unfurl old glory . . .
INGRAHAM: I hear a but coming . . . .
TROTTER: But if the homeowner is applying this rule and regulation evenhandedly and not deciding to allow some flags and not allow other flags, then you don’t have a constitutional right to put a flag pole up in your neighborhood. When you purchased properties subject to a homeowners covenant or agreement, then you are agreeing for the property values of everyone in that community that you will abide by those regulations.
INGRAHAM: Well the ruling here is easy, I’m going with Scott Bolden because I understand “feed the supremacy clause” still does exist and we have a federal statute that actually protects the right to fly a flag. Nice try both of you. Now to a really strange case in India: a man wants to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent—
VIDEO OF MAN: “If we are born without our consent, then we should be maintained for the rest of our life. We should be paid to live, by them.
INGRAHAM: Now to be clear, no law suit has been filed, so it’s very possible this is all big publicity stunt but were still going to take it up in the court of Ingraham. OK let’s put 30 seconds back on the clock. Gayle, you may begin your argument, go.
TROTTER: If I representing the parents I would immediately say that the son does not have standing because he did not exist when he was conceived. If the court viewed that he did have a right to sue her, he did have standing, he would not have the capacity to consent when he was an embryo because he would be a minor and his parents would have the legal capacity to consent on his behalf. Also it turns the entire concept of law upside down.
BOLDEN: Well that’s what this case is about: but for his parents, he didn’t have a right to choose to come into this world but for his parents. Either they were negligent or they breached the social contract or of sexual contract with each other. But the bottom line is he didn’t buy into emancipation statutes. He didn’t have a choice in coming here and so as a result his parents have committed and contracted with him to provide clothing, food and all the essentials. Now the local and state statues about emancipation, they are certainly in place but he didn’t buy into them and they don’t apply to him.
INGRAHAM: Rebuttal.
TROTTER: I brought you into this world, I can take you out.
INGRAHAM: That’s it?
BOLDEN: But if you brought me in, I want you to take care me for the rest of my life because I didn’t choose to come here.
INGRAHAM: I have a question, where does society go if this is where case law will go–that children can sue parents for conception. Where do we go as a society?
TROTTER: This is an absolutely frivolous lawsuit. As a parent myself I know that I have contributed way more to my children’s education and support and everything else.
INGRAHAM: Well I’d like to know what Ralph Northam would think of this suit. I’m going to actually not only rule against Scott, but I’m going to sanction you because this is a frivolous lawsuit and I want to see you in chambers afterward ….
