4 ms·

The cost of frivolous lawsuits is always higher outside the US. In the rest of the world it is regulators and governments who enforce laws on companies and in m

The cost of frivolous lawsuits is always higher outside the US. In the rest of the world it is regulators and governments who enforce laws on companies and in many of them the government fines the company for damages and takes all the money itself.

mjburgess 5y ago
In most cases there isn't a significant harm to any individual. If the government has been set up as a reliable enforcer of the laws then it makes more sense for it to collect the fines -- as with being personally fined for a breach of the law (eg., fined for speeding). The US is a strange place -- its unclear whether its use of elections "in everything" has caused this partisan distrust of every last elemenet of government -- or whether it would be worse without it. I tend to see the preference for more direct democracy, as in the US, as corrosive. (And yet, you also have the most tyrannical element of gov: a court supreme over the legislature).
- barney54 5y ago
  What does this ruling in the UK have to do with the US?
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    For one thing, Google is a US company.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      Okay? Still not sure how that connects the parent's rant on US government structure
  - simonh 5y ago
    OP contrasted this ruling with the situation in the US, and the comment was expanding on that point.
- xpe 5y ago
  According to what political philosophy is court's enforcement and interpretation of laws (passed by legislatures) 'tyrannical'? According to such a political philosophy, what are some recommended alternatives to this claimed tyranny?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- xpe 5y ago
  First of all any claim that the US Supreme Court is categorically 'supreme' than the legislature is not true. It is a fact that each of the three branches of government have powers that check and balance each other. In other words if you were to draw a diagram of powers, there are responses available to other branches to counter one branch's action. These responses vary in time scale and impact of course. So you will certainly find scholars who get into the details of how e.g. the Supreme Court's power changes over time. One would be making a value judgement if they were to claim that, overall, the US Supreme Court is 'more powerful'. Opinions are fine -- just recognize them as such and explain your reasoning -- one's weightings of what matters more and less.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    That's the story -- is it /true/ ? Several maneovers have made the supreme court vastly more powerful than ever envisaged. The SC declaring for itself (in Marbury v. Madison) the right for itself to review the law itself. And subsequent to the civil war, the widening supremacy of federal law (esp. via commerce clause) -- which its own opinions are incorporated in -- and so on. The "balance of powers" was set up in an essentially pre-federal US. The current US is a system which feels itself "finally answerable" to the at-whim constitution interpretations of nine people. This is a radically different end-state than imagined pre-Madison. In my view the legislature needs to exercise much more constitutional oversight over the SC, and up-end the last century of scope-creep.
    - qsort 5y ago
      Almost all Western countries have a system of judicial review, so I would personally find the opposite to be odd (why would it make sense to have a constitution at all if it can be effectively ignored by the legislature?) If anything, from an European perspective, what I find odd is that the US Supreme Court is both the final appellate court and the judicial body that determines constitutionality of primary legislation.
      - mjburgess 5y ago
        I prefer the British system: parliament is sovereign and the primary source of all power. The executive is derivative of the lower-house and the courts merely resolve issues between laws (and it used to be that the courts, derived from the upper-house -- which i'd go back to). The benefit of the legislature being the source of all power is it leads to a tremendously stable system. Tremendous instability arises from the legislature being neutered (as by the courts, or the executive). As popular sentiment is profoundly frustrated, and the legislature absolves itself of responsibility to govern. Almost all the "culture wars" in the US can be traced to the supreme court, as can the civil war -- which in its rebuke against the Missouri compromise caused the civil war!. "Balance of powers" systems have always ended up in civil wars. The post-civilwar presidential system is the longest such a system has survived: but let's be clear, it failed (ie., there was a civil war). That means of running governments has led to all of them collapsing. I'd incorporate the constitution as an act of the legislature; and subordinate the supreme court to work like every other: reviewing laws for consistency between themselves -- and not for consisency with "higher principles". The legislature can then, by any act if it wishes, elaborate or change the constitution to resolve "contradictions" the supreme court points out. This hands power back to the body actually responsible for governing. (The instability due to Brexit in the UK precisely arose from the legislature stupidly binding itself with the Fixed-Term Parliaments act, which is now being revoked. Had that not been in place, Brexit would have been resolved immediately. And, incidentally, it is precisely that the EU is a "constitutional order" in the US sense which is causing its internal stress; and why the UK left. )
LatteLazy 5y ago
Also "The American rule" means you pay your legal fees even if you win. So that halves the cost of frivolous suits...
- nradov 5y ago
  The winning party can ask the judge to award legal fees. That provides some protection against frivolous lawsuits.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

mjburgess 5y ago

In most cases there isn't a significant harm to any individual. If the government has been set up as a reliable enforcer of the laws then it makes more sense for it to collect the fines -- as with being personally fined for a breach of the law (eg., fined for speeding). The US is a strange place -- its unclear whether its use of elections "in everything" has caused this partisan distrust of every last elemenet of government -- or whether it would be worse without it. I tend to see the preference for more direct democracy, as in the US, as corrosive. (And yet, you also have the most tyrannical element of gov: a court supreme over the legislature).

barney54 5y ago
What does this ruling in the UK have to do with the US?
- l33t2328 5y ago
  For one thing, Google is a US company.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Okay? Still not sure how that connects the parent's rant on US government structure
- simonh 5y ago
  OP contrasted this ruling with the situation in the US, and the comment was expanding on that point.
xpe 5y ago
According to what political philosophy is court's enforcement and interpretation of laws (passed by legislatures) 'tyrannical'? According to such a political philosophy, what are some recommended alternatives to this claimed tyranny?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
xpe 5y ago
First of all any claim that the US Supreme Court is categorically 'supreme' than the legislature is not true. It is a fact that each of the three branches of government have powers that check and balance each other. In other words if you were to draw a diagram of powers, there are responses available to other branches to counter one branch's action. These responses vary in time scale and impact of course. So you will certainly find scholars who get into the details of how e.g. the Supreme Court's power changes over time. One would be making a value judgement if they were to claim that, overall, the US Supreme Court is 'more powerful'. Opinions are fine -- just recognize them as such and explain your reasoning -- one's weightings of what matters more and less.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  That's the story -- is it /true/ ? Several maneovers have made the supreme court vastly more powerful than ever envisaged. The SC declaring for itself (in Marbury v. Madison) the right for itself to review the law itself. And subsequent to the civil war, the widening supremacy of federal law (esp. via commerce clause) -- which its own opinions are incorporated in -- and so on. The "balance of powers" was set up in an essentially pre-federal US. The current US is a system which feels itself "finally answerable" to the at-whim constitution interpretations of nine people. This is a radically different end-state than imagined pre-Madison. In my view the legislature needs to exercise much more constitutional oversight over the SC, and up-end the last century of scope-creep.
  - qsort 5y ago
    Almost all Western countries have a system of judicial review, so I would personally find the opposite to be odd (why would it make sense to have a constitution at all if it can be effectively ignored by the legislature?) If anything, from an European perspective, what I find odd is that the US Supreme Court is both the final appellate court and the judicial body that determines constitutionality of primary legislation.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      I prefer the British system: parliament is sovereign and the primary source of all power. The executive is derivative of the lower-house and the courts merely resolve issues between laws (and it used to be that the courts, derived from the upper-house -- which i'd go back to). The benefit of the legislature being the source of all power is it leads to a tremendously stable system. Tremendous instability arises from the legislature being neutered (as by the courts, or the executive). As popular sentiment is profoundly frustrated, and the legislature absolves itself of responsibility to govern. Almost all the "culture wars" in the US can be traced to the supreme court, as can the civil war -- which in its rebuke against the Missouri compromise caused the civil war!. "Balance of powers" systems have always ended up in civil wars. The post-civilwar presidential system is the longest such a system has survived: but let's be clear, it failed (ie., there was a civil war). That means of running governments has led to all of them collapsing. I'd incorporate the constitution as an act of the legislature; and subordinate the supreme court to work like every other: reviewing laws for consistency between themselves -- and not for consisency with "higher principles". The legislature can then, by any act if it wishes, elaborate or change the constitution to resolve "contradictions" the supreme court points out. This hands power back to the body actually responsible for governing. (The instability due to Brexit in the UK precisely arose from the legislature stupidly binding itself with the Fixed-Term Parliaments act, which is now being revoked. Had that not been in place, Brexit would have been resolved immediately. And, incidentally, it is precisely that the EU is a "constitutional order" in the US sense which is causing its internal stress; and why the UK left. )

LatteLazy 5y ago

Also "The American rule" means you pay your legal fees even if you win. So that halves the cost of frivolous suits...

nradov 5y ago
The winning party can ask the judge to award legal fees. That provides some protection against frivolous lawsuits.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]