Exactly. Congress can pass it, but if the Supreme Court rejects it then it goes to the chopper. From what I understand, Congress will pass a law, the President will review and sign it to approve, but all that can be stopped if the courts decided that the law is unconstitutional.

 

:rofl:

 

pwnt.

 

The thing is this law isn't necessarily unconstitutional--it only erodes the right of the courts to decide which cases to hear.

The court system works fine as it is. Only after a judge decides a case is worth of trial and a jury decides to find in favor of the plaintiff does the defendant lose anything.

As George pointed out, even "frivolous" lawsuits do have facts which are convincing enough to both a judge and a jury such that damages are awarded.

Truly frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court. It has never been nor should it be the place of congress or any other legislative body to decide who has access to the court system and to what end.

 

yeah, because lawyers are free for corporations right. they don't have to pay a thing.

 

Yeah but this ban will prevent it ever going to court period. Even though that case never made it to trial I can quarantee you days were wasted on it. Days that could of been used for more important cases.

 

That's not entirely true.

Twenty years from now, what a judge feels is "profoundly obvious" could change.

Something that comes immediately to mind is the different concepts of spousal abuse and "date rape" that exist in 2004, compared to the dismissal of charges and dismissal of suits that you'd see in the 1980's. In some states, it's the same laws that are being used for the arrest, but the judges and juries view it differently than they did 20 years ago.

 

It's a tax writeoff for them.

It offsets their revenue, but the stockholders, owners and board directors do not personally take a hit unless it's a Subchapter S corporation (unlikely in this kind of action).

 

The judiciary in the United States is the only branch of government with the equivalent of "line item veto." The courts in the United States can strike a particular provision of a law while leaving most of it intact.

This can render a part of a written law unenforceable, even if Congress refuses to change the law.

Presidents of the United States have always been jealous of the Queen's power to cross out individual words, sentences or sections of a bill before she signs it; however, if we made it possible for the President to do that same thing, it's patently clear that US Presidents would engage in the pursuit fairly frequently and with political prejudice. The Queen almost never does it, and when she does it's already clear to Parliament and the society that a mistake was made w/the provision she's crossing out.

The governor of Virginia has this power, by the way, inherited from the days of the royal governors.

 

even so, those lawyer's fees have to come somewhere. with it being a tax writeoff, that hurts everyone by spreading that burden to the taxpayer for that bit of revenue. either way, these frivolous lawsuits cost time and money regardless of whether or not it goes to trial or is thrown out. that cost has to be burdened somewhere, and since it is a tax writeoff we as taxpayers pay that cost.