3 ms·

That lawsuit would be in a civil court, with civil lawyers and actual judges. Not a room full of round-robin corporate laywers. My comment was not about whethe

• jcranmer 10y ago
  So you'd rather the case be decided by a single lawyer^H^H^H^H^H^H judge than a panel of lawyers. Even in common law jurisdictions, most of these sorts of cases tend to focus on disputes over issues of law (hence tried by a judge), not issues of fact (which are the only issues which proceed to a jury trial). Judges are usually lawyers before becoming judges--that's not terribly surprising, considering that judges are expected to know a lot of legal theory, which is essentially the same training you undergo to become a lawyer. Fearing the provisions of ISDS would undermine the principles of justice means that you would rather trust the judgements of a single, likely overworked, lawyer who is expected to know the entire relevant body of law and case history for his or her jurisdiction over the judgements of a panel of lawyers who are likely to have somewhat specialized in the area of dispute being covered.
  • ab5tract 10y ago
    You have thrown up a false equivalency and are pursuing it in an odd manner. What I would prefer is that there is absolutely zero mechanisms for a corporation to sue a government over "potential lost profits". This is just not at all the same as discussing a potential lawsuit over defamation / libel / whatever "you" would be suing me over a comment for. And, yes, in that case I would still prefer to go through the normal court system with laws written by my legislature rather than a room full of mega corps and trade representatives.