One of the things our system of law does is challenge the limits.
Pretty much anyone can sue for pretty much anything. There are sanctions and potential costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit but most lawyers are skilled at finding ways to prove they had cause and standing. They try to work that out before they bring a suit and most judges, being lawyers themselves, are pretty receptive to even flimsy justifications.
Now at times sanctions are imposed but those cases are so unusual that most lawyers don't worry too much. Of course punishing a lawyer who pursues a ridiculous issue like voting irregularities in the last election only means the next claimant just has to find someone else.
Criminal law is of course different and while it has its own problems they are different issues.
Civil cases are where the courts write a lot o new law.
They write new law because after a line is established they are always looking to move it further along.
Take things like workplace harassment.
The law has moved significantly in the direction of the "victims" because that's where the good settlement are. We seem to have s standard where the "victim" gets to decide what it is. Further, because fighting these cases are expensive many companies are eager to settle.
Equal and fair treatment in the workplace was the goal at one time. It might never have been possible since the interactions between men and women are somewhat unique.
I understand nuance. The same words can mean quite different things depending on how they are said. Still, who gets to decide that?
No comments:
Post a Comment