homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 10:19 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 3:44 pm
Posts: 11
Home Schooled: Yes
According to small businesses, the federal court system is rampant with "frivolous" lawsuits. They bring up extremely extreme examples that somehow convince the judge. Excuse me, judges because they've won finals twice in our region. So because frivolous litigation is such a MASSIVE problem, the affirmative team reforms Rule 11 to make sanctions mandatory, abolish the 21 day safe harbor, and compensate the victim. The plan was tried from 1983-1993 and the affirmative team claims it was very effective (it wasn't).

What do you guys think?

_________________
Caleb Canna - Verdict FL

Canna/Martin | RVIII | '13-'17


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2878
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Goldmine of evidence here:
https://centerjd.org/system/files/LARAFACTSHEET3.pdf

Alternatively, there's advocacy for a counterplan here:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Counterplan: modify rule 11 in precisely the same way, but have it go through SCOTUS instead of Congress. This would keeps Congress traditionally neutral on litigation and sends a strong message from no less than the Supreme Court that frivolous lawsuits won't be tolerated.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Sharkfin wrote:


eh.... a lot of those arguments actually don't work.

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.)

2) A/T: "Chilling Effect on Civil Rights Cases"
a) LARA removes this harm with a specific Civil rights exception in the bill.

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!)

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.

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2878
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
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)


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. :P 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)...

Quote:
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?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited