A few years ago I read a story about a man in Seattle who filed a lawsuit against the milk industry. He claimed that the Got Milk commercials caused him to develope an addiction to moo juice. Without filing fees the courts would be totally clogged up with any silly thing anybody could think of
If you want to get rid of frivolous law suits, have the loser pay all attorney's fees and associated costs (not typically a contingency fee) for both parties. That's fairly common practice in most parts of Europe.
That makes too much sense. Lawyers will always turn on the crocodile tears and whine that it would deny access to the poor. I think civil courts should have panels of ordinary citizens who would have to approve a claims legitimacy before a suit could be filed.
Not for losing, only for losing frivolously. I'd give judges the option to do this if the case proves truly frivolous. If it were automatic, then people would be inhibited from filing a lawsuit, however justfied, against a big corporation, whose legal bills could bankrupt them if they lost. Even entirely proper and justifiable lawsuits sometimes lose because of poor attorneys, missing witnesses, lost evidence, or overt jury bias. Losing alone should not make a lawsuit frivolous.
Apparently you do not either. The words are synonymous. legal –adjective 1. permitted by law; lawful. 2. of or pertaining to law. 3. appointed, established, or authorized by law. 4. recognized by law rather than by equity. lawful –adjective 1. allowed or permitted by law. 2. recognized or sanctioned by law. 3. appointed or recognized by law. 4. legally qualified. 5. acting or living according to the law. We don't have to guess. The dictionary is the authority on what words mean. The dictionary says . . . they are two adjectives with the same definition.
It should, as long as judges are overseen by review boards and subject to appeals court rulings. But I'd like to see judges elected to long terms so they aren't having to politic very much or very often.
you win, i have replied to the troll, and i already regret it. for example , nobody gives a damn if you say the war on drugs is unlawful or illegal or whatever. lawful or legal according to what? the declaration of independence or whatever? the constitutiion? so what? the cops are gonna arrest us for drugs either way and nobody cares what your documents say. whatever is lawful is legal has to be backed by a legitimizing force or it simply is irrelevant. so if the powers that be have determined that a war on drugs is great, then thats the way it is. laws have to be backed with force for anyone to care. i know you like to say the government is exercising all manner of unlawful practices or whatever. but they are the government and they have guns and we have given them the power to decide what it lawful or legal. so if they pass a law that people named tinsley are to be forced fed big macs, then that is the law, and it is perfectly legit, backedby the force of the government. what am telling you is that you are going about your arguments the wrong way. like my example of the war protestors: "this is an illegal war". they should have argued the actual reasons why the war is wrong, not some legal mumbo jumbo. because clearly the US didnt give a damn what was legal according to some moron. they have legitimacy, they have power, they have the backing of the people that matter. so that is what matters. and if you want change, that is where you start. Legitimacy (political) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is an ethical element in lawful that is absent in legal.Google: Legal v Lawful Legal or Lawful? It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful. The generic Constitution references genuine law. The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal. Is there a difference in the meanings? The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893: Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [Bold emphasis added] Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual “Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [Bold emphasis added] *snip*
