Eh. I'm not convinced after a quick reading of the ACTUAL decision. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf
I have always thought that present US rules invite abuse of the judicial system with false claims that are settled just to avoid cost. This, also, is not justice. Just because the ruling is in favor of the despicable Ashcroft does not mean that it is not valid in the narrow context of the issues. Ed$ --- In [email protected], James C <jcpatr...@...> wrote: > > > I find this disturbing. There is no justice in the american judicial system. > James > > To: [email protected] > From: jon.rol...@... > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:54 -0500 > Subject: [Libertarian] Supreme Court Guts American System of Justice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.prisonplanet.com/supreme-court-guts-american-system-of-justice.html > > > > Washington's Blog > > <http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/supreme-court-decision-is-assault-on.html> > > Wednesday, July 22, 2009 > > > > The New York Times > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/21bar.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=9/11&st=cse> > > is providing important coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's May 18, 2009 > > decision in the case known as Ashcroft v. Iqbal: > > > > The lower courts have certainly understood the significance of the > > decision, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which makes it much easier for judges > > to dismiss civil lawsuits right after they are filed. They have > > cited it more than 500 times in just the last two months. > > > > "Iqbal is the most significant Supreme Court decision in a decade > > for day-to-day litigation in the federal courts," said Thomas C. > > Goldstein, an appellate lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld > > in Washington. > > > > Why is Iqbal such an important case? > > > > As the Times notes: > > > > For more than half a century, it has been clear that all a plaintiff > > had to do to start a lawsuit was to file what the rules call "a > > short and plain statement of the claim" in a document called a > > complaint. Having filed such a bare-bones complaint, plaintiffs were > > entitled to force defendants to open their files and submit to > > questioning under oath. > > > > This approach, particularly when coupled with the American > > requirement that each side pay its own lawyers no matter who wins, > > gave plaintiffs settlement leverage. Just by filing a lawsuit, a > > plaintiff could subject a defendant to great cost and inconvenience > > in the pre-trial fact-finding process called discovery... > > > > Information about wrongdoing is often secret. Plaintiffs claiming > > they were the victims of employment discrimination, a defective > > product, an antitrust conspiracy or a policy of harsh treatment in > > detention may not know exactly who harmed them and how before filing > > suit. But plaintiffs can learn valuable information during discovery. > > > > The Iqbal decision now requires plaintiffs to come forward with > > concrete facts at the outset, and it instructs lower court judges to > > dismiss lawsuits that strike them as implausible. > > > > "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for > > relief," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the five-justice > > majority, "requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial > > experience and common sense." > > > > More ... > > <http://www.prisonplanet.com/supreme-court-guts-american-system-of-justice.html> > > > > -- > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 > > 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org jon.rol...@... > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. > http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072009 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
