Even more than the outright bigotry, what concerns me most is this growing trend of conservative ideology that allows for lawsuits without cause. You shouldn’t be able to sue unless you are harmed. That’s the way its supposed to work. Yet these conservative courts have been turning that concept entirely on its head lately.
? All I’m saying is that immediate harm is not required for a lawsuit. I know you think you’re being smart but you’re overanalyzing what I said for no reason.
No, not at all. Immediate harm was never the criteria we were discussing. It was any harm. It’s always been legal to argue that you have a reasonable suspicion that a law will affect you personally. Even if it has yet to do so. That can be argued in a court of law. That is not what I’m objecting to at all
What I’m objecting to is the current practice in conservative legal thought process where you can sue when you have no reasonable expectation that it will affect you personally. We’ve seen that all over conservative legal arguments lately.
I think you’re not appreciating the difference between a criminal violation and a civil tort. In civil law plaintiffs are required to claim damages. This is a means to ensure the system isn’t full of pointless petty lawsuits.
Even more than the outright bigotry, what concerns me most is this growing trend of conservative ideology that allows for lawsuits without cause. You shouldn’t be able to sue unless you are harmed. That’s the way its supposed to work. Yet these conservative courts have been turning that concept entirely on its head lately.
Um that’s not true at all. You are absolutely allowed to challenge the precedence of laws even if you have been yet to be directly affected.
That’s something completely different. You can tell by your use of the word “yet”.
How is that “completely different”
Why did you use the word “yet”?
because you are allowed to challenge laws even if they have yet to affect your life
Again, why are you using the word yet? Think about it. When you have you’ll understand the difference.
? All I’m saying is that immediate harm is not required for a lawsuit. I know you think you’re being smart but you’re overanalyzing what I said for no reason.
No, not at all. Immediate harm was never the criteria we were discussing. It was any harm. It’s always been legal to argue that you have a reasonable suspicion that a law will affect you personally. Even if it has yet to do so. That can be argued in a court of law. That is not what I’m objecting to at all
What I’m objecting to is the current practice in conservative legal thought process where you can sue when you have no reasonable expectation that it will affect you personally. We’ve seen that all over conservative legal arguments lately.
So no speeding tickets, no health inspection, no mandatory safety procedures, etc.?
All of that is enforced through laws that originate from lawsuits.
I think you might need to read my comment again as you wildly misinterpreted it.
“you shouldn’t be able to sue unless you are harmed” means there wouldn’t be ground for protective things. That’s what I mean.
You DUI? As long as this time you didn’t hit anyone, no fines / lawsuit?
I think you’re not appreciating the difference between a criminal violation and a civil tort. In civil law plaintiffs are required to claim damages. This is a means to ensure the system isn’t full of pointless petty lawsuits.
I gave just one example, but there are others like copyrights, patents, etc., in which you sue without having damage.
Not even in the slightest. That’s just simply not how laws work.