Alec The Thinker wrote:
1) A/T: "Everyone hated it..."
a) Those are all attorneys. (LARA hurts attorneys)
b) The Judges that actually had experience with the stronger Rule 11 supported it.
c) 2005 Study is faulty. (It had a minuscule sample size and hardly any of the judges had any experience with the stronger rule 11.)
A1) I'm not sure where you get this idea that LARA hurts all attorneys. Not all attorneys bring lawsuits. Attorneys have to defend against frivolous lawsuits too.
A2) You can't indict all attorneys and say that they shouldn't be allowed to venture an opinion. They are literally the only people qualified to say whether or not LARA has a chilling effect on meritorious litigation because they're the people that would be sanctioned. Anyone else is just speculating.
B) All of them? I suggest that district court turnover is pretty low--average tenure is what, 20 years?--at least a sizeable portion of the FJC's sample would've been judges who experienced the 1983-1993 rendition of rule 11.
C) Miniscule sample size? It surveyed all federal district court judges with a 70 percent response rate. (For those curious: http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/looku ... nRep05.pdf
2) A/T: "Chilling Effect on Civil Rights Cases"
a) LARA removes this harm with a specific Civil rights exception in the bill.
Critical reading is important! I thought the same thing the first time I skimmed the bill. You're referring to the rule of construction.
What it says: "these amendments don't mean that you should reject any cases with "new" claims/defenses/etc. just because they don't have current precedent."
What is doesn't say: that sanctions must not be applied to plaintiffs bringing civil rights claims.
3) A/T: "Satellite Litigation"
a) Judges back then didn't think it burdened the courts
b) Point made... (Of course rule 11 motions went up, that's the whole point!)
A) As above, there's some disagreement over that fact.
B) But that's not the point.
Your modifications to rule 11 don't expand the scope of what "frivolous litigation" means. You just increase the penalties for frivolous litigation. Unless you change the scope, you wouldn't expect rule 11 claims to increase.... unless, of course, attorneys were using the motion to discourage the plaintiff from pursuing the case (i.e. frivolous motions)...
4) A/T: "It's illegal because Congress would be circumventing the REA"
a) Congress CREATED the REA....
b) It's completely legal and Congress has changed Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before.
Out of curiosity, when?