Anti-Corruption and Public Interest Act

[icehorse]

Elizabeth Warren has proposed some new legislation: (warning, this link gets to an automatic download, sorry)

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Seems like a great start to fighting those pesky oligarchs.

 

[BSM1]

This is great. Now if she would introduce legislation against lying about Native American heritage that would be just grand...just sayin'.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is great. Now if she would introduce legislation against lying about Native American heritage that would be just grand...just sayin'.

It would also be great if losers had to pay the winner's costs
when the defendant prevails. But as a lawyer, she favors
corruption which benefits her & her profession.
So instead, she wants it to become even easier to sue others.

 

[PureX]

This is great. Now if she would introduce legislation against lying about Native American heritage that would be just grand...just sayin'.

Yeah, because that's what's really important, here.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, because that's what's really important, here.

go easy on @BSM1 - he thinks that someday he'll be a billionaire too!

 

[PureX]

It's start, but when one wants to pay out a bribe, and the other wants to take it, they will usually find a way to get it done. Paying the spouses of lawmakers huge salaries for do-nothing jobs, for example, is a classic method of bribery that I didn't see mentioned in the proposal.

 

[icehorse]

It would also be great if losers had to pay the winner's costs
when the defendant prevails. But as a lawyer, she favors
corruption which benefits her & her profession.
So instead, she wants it to become even easier to sue others.

Can you elaborate?

(And, btw, the OP was really more about the legislation than the messenger, correct?)

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you elaborate?

(And, btw, the OP was really more about the legislation than the messenger, correct?)

I read her screed.
It appears to go after others, but excludes things she'd do.
In particular, her legal reform would make things even worse...
....for non-lawyers.

 

[PureX]

It would also be great if losers had to pay the winner's costs
when the defendant prevails. But as a lawyer, she favors
corruption which benefits her & her profession.
So instead, she wants it to become even easier to sue others.

Punishing someone for bringing a law suit and then losing it is neither reasonable nor practical. It just makes the rich more able to abuse the legal system than everyone else. But this is off-topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Punishing someone for bringing a law suit and then losing it is neither reasonable nor practical. It just makes the rich more able to abuse the legal system than everyone else. But this is off-topic.

So you air your objection, & then declare it off-topic?
Pbbtttt!
If someone sues someone else, & doesn't win, then the
plaintiff has done financial (& possibly more) damage to
an innocent defendant. The winner deserves compensation.

This is more than just....it's practical. It would reduce the
number of lawsuits filed by 95.8%, greatly improving our
economy, & putting many lawyers out of work.

 

[icehorse]

If someone sues someone else, & doesn't win, then the
plaintiff has done financial (& possibly more) damage to
an innocent defendant. The winner deserves compensation.

I agree that we need to find ways to reduce lawyering in this country. But in terms of the legislation in the OP, that seems to be something like making the perfect the enemy of the good. As I said, this legislation seems like a good start. I'm happy to grant you that it doesn't solve all the world's problems, but I'm curious to know what you think about how it deals (or doesn't), with what it's focused on?

 

[PureX]

So you air your objection, & then declare it off-topic?
Pbbtttt!
If someone sues someone else, & doesn't win, then the
plaintiff has done financial (& possibly more) damage to
an innocent defendant. The winner deserves compensation.

The solution would be to assign competent legal representation to defendants in both criminal and civil actions. Not to punish people for taking legal action and then not prevailing. The courts should not be run like casinos.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that we need to find ways to reduce lawyering in this country. But in terms of the legislation in the OP, that seems to be something like making the perfect the enemy of the good. As I said, this legislation seems like a good start. I'm happy to grant you that it doesn't solve all the world's problems, but I'm curious to know what you think about how it deals (or doesn't), with what it's focused on?

The legislation has some merit.
It also greatly interferes with economic & political freedom.
But it wouldn't do nearly as much to benefit society as the
loser pay system which she opposes.

 

[Revoltingest]

The solution would be to assign competent legal representation to defendants in both criminal and civil actions. Not to punish people for taking legal action and then not prevailing.

That's no solution at all to the problem of meritless suits.
Incompetence is rife in both judges & lawyers.

The courts should not be run like casinos.

Casinos are far better run than the courts.
I've been in both.

 

[icehorse]

The legislation has some merit.
It also greatly interferes with economic & political freedom.
But it wouldn't do nearly as much to benefit society as the
loser pay system which she opposes.

It seems to me that corruption and litigiousness are two distinct problems, no?

On the corruption front, you think that ending corruption would interfere with economic and political freedoms?

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that corruption and litigiousness are two distinct problems, no?

No, our legal system is quite corrupt.
Consider that judges were once practicing lawyers, & will be again.
This incentivizes them to feather their nests.

On the corruption front, you think that ending corruption would interfere with economic and political freedoms?

We cannot end corruption.
It should be mitigated in useful ways.

One proposal I've made for decades.....
Entrapment of anyone in public service should be legal.
They should be deathly afraid that any solicitation of
bribes or such would certainly land them in prison.
This would have consequences far & wide...with only
one new law.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me that corruption and litigiousness are two distinct problems, no?

No, our legal system is quite corrupt.
Consider that judges were once practicing lawyers, & will be again.
This incentivizes them to feather their nests.

On the corruption front, you think that ending corruption would interfere with economic and political freedoms?

We cannot end corruption.
It should be mitigated in useful ways.

One proposal I've made for decades.....
Entrapment of anyone in public service should be legal.
They should be deathly afraid that any solicitation of
bribes or such would certainly land them in prison.

 

[icehorse]

No, our legal system is quite corrupt.
Consider that judges were once practicing lawyers, & will be again.
This incentivizes them to feather their nests.

We cannot end corruption.
It should be mitigated in useful ways.

One proposal I've made for decades.....
Entrapment of anyone in public service should be legal.
They should be deathly afraid that any solicitation of
bribes or such would certainly land them in prison.
This would have consequences far & wide...with only
one new law.

Now you're listing three distinct problems:

- litigiousness
- corruption in politics
- corruption in the legal system.

I agree that all three are real problems. It seems best to have legislation that focuses on each separately.

I do like your entrapment law idea!

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you're listing three distinct problems:

- litigiousness
- corruption in politics
- corruption in the legal system.

I agree that all three are real problems. It seems best to have legislation that focuses on each separately.

I do like your entrapment law idea!

Litigiousness is fostered by a corrupt system.
Note also that lawmakers tend to be lawyers.
This is indeed corruption in politics.

 

[BSM1]

Yeah, because that's what's really important, here.

Soooo...lying only counts when it's done by the other guys?