posted
I almost completely shocked that this actually got passed. Let's see what happens in the Senate.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This bill should drop. Not that I endorse such lawsuits, but I don't like the idea of any restrictions against individuals seeking redress other than court-level dismissals.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the bill were to pass, it would not affect a pending lawsuit, since the ban was not in place when the suit was filed.
This is not necessarily true - it depends on the how the bill is written.
Not that I expect that the reporter got it right. But without examining the bill, there's no way to tell.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ex Post Facto deals exclusively with criminal punishment. See this wiki link for one example in the context of requiring sex offender registration.
quote:At the time the Constitution was adopted, many persons understood the term ex post facto laws to ''embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing or controlling past transactions, whether . . . of a civil or a criminal nature.'' 1722 But in the early case of Calder v. Bull, 1723 the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes. But although it is inapplicable to retroactive legislation of any other kind, 1724 the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal. 1725 Every law, which makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or which inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution. 1726
posted
While on one hand, I think those law suits are moronic, come on everyone knows that fast food is bad for you. When I was a kid back in the 80's I remember that my parents would almost never let us eat fast food (and rarely ate it themselves) because it was unhealthy.
On the other hand, I think it is the courts job to tell the plaintiffs that their cases have no merit, and dismiss them. It seems odd having congress specifically create legislation prevent a lawsuit. Limiting the payouts I understand, but I think the courts should decide whether to hear the case or not. Of course, many of the judges we have are idiots so maybe it is necessary for congress to get involved.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's actually well within the legislature's prerogative to define the elements of particular torts and to exclude particular cases from torts which seem to apply.
Many torts are statutorily defined, and many traditionally common law torts have been modified by legislatures.
Courts don't have the final say over what constitutes a tort.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
