And the Supreme Court is absolutely right.
However, Gavin Newsome (and you, by implication) attempt to conflate it to the issue of firearms rights.
The left has already attempted, numerous times and since the 1980's, to sue manufacturers of firearms and ammunition into oblivion. None of the lawsuits were successful, and it became such a nuisance that explicit laws were written to prevent such lawsuits.
As to your assertion that this tactic will be used in other leftist causes.... fine. Not seeing how it changes the playing field at all. This is the present state of affairs anyways, anyone may sue about anything. I am very much for the adoption of 'Loser Pays' legislation about civil lawsuits, which would greatly lessen the nuisance lawsuits out there.
Both Newsome and you have only restated the current state of legal affairs, providing no evidence of new vulnerabilities or legal tactics whatsoever.
In the case of Newsome, he is merely counting on the low-intelligence-level of Californians to not realize that his comments are meaningless. In your case, however, you cannot rely on the low-intelligence-level of Freepers in your attempt to troll us. :^)
Laz,
Loser pays would be a disaster for justice. Loser pays just means deeper pockets wins.
As I said.
The left has already attempted, numerous times and since the 1980's, to sue manufacturers of firearms and ammunition into oblivion. None of the lawsuits were successful, and it became such a nuisance that explicit laws were written to prevent such lawsuits.
True. People tried suing abortion providers and failed, too. But the purpose of this law, like the Texas law, is to open a floodgate of suits from anyone who feels they were impacted, however remotely, by the sale of the gun. Faced with hundreds, potentially thousands, of lawsuits may make sellers and manufacturers feel that the California market isn't worth the hassle. That's the whole point.
Now if Newsom's law does pass and if it does result in hundreds of lawsuits and if they all go to court then I expect that they would face the same fate as the Texas abortion lawsuits will - summarily dismissed due to lack of standing. But in the mean time the gun manufacturers will be spending thousands and thousands of dollars defending themselves.
As to your assertion that this tactic will be used in other leftist causes.... fine. Not seeing how it changes the playing field at all.
Depends on whether you're on the receiving end or not. Say, as I said, New York passes a law that says that sexual harassment against one woman is sexual harassment against all. Suddenly thousands of suits are filed against Trump and Cuomo and they're forced to spend a fortune defending themselves. What kind of damage could that due to future plans?
Both Newsome and you have only restated the current state of legal affairs, providing no evidence of new vulnerabilities or legal tactics whatsoever.
Sit back and watch then.
In your case, however, you cannot rely on the low-intelligence-level of Freepers in your attempt to troll us. :^)
Apparently worked on you.
The 'Loser pays' part is what's missing from the Texas law. When liberals adopt this tactic, they will use it to bankrupt conservatives.
Good points.
I am probably not going to follow your discussion in full, however, I am very interested in doing so. I think that a huge, complete debate about this issue is in order.
As soon as I noticed what was in the Texas law, my eyebrows were raised. It appeared to me that there might a major flaw that might lurk within it. The two of you, and Newsome, have pointed out where that might lie.
I hope that Texas is able to eventually get the intent of this law fully on the books. I am a bit concerned about the full mechanism of the law as written.
May the debate continue and prosper in intellectual prowess...