They may be within their rights, depending on how these rights get defined by our laws, Constitution and judicial decision. Over recent years the right to sue governmental bodies has expanded, more with regard to state and local governments than federal.
The question I’m addressing is whether it’s good public policy. One explicit purpose of tort liability is to punish the tort feasor (the wrong-doer). When suing the government, the citizens get punished, not the tort-feasor.
I see no social justice in taking money away from sick people and inner city students, especially when most of it will wind up in the pockets of wealthy attorneys.
Well, shit, I’m probably never going to Japan, so should I spell it Jupan? Or Gupan? I mean, a simple mistake is one thing-doing it because you don’t bother having the common respect to TRY and spell it right is rather disrespectful, me thinks. Besides, the Cyrillic thing was a joke, Bill. Lighten up. You’d probably be the first to complain if someone spelled this country Amarika, or something…
I don’t mind that Bill wrote “Perubians” or “Puruvians.” I knew what he meant. No big deal.
On the other hand, Bill: here’s a dollar, go buy some commas. The comma thing is annoying because I often don’t know what you mean (or, at least, I have to read your post a couple of times).
As for suing the government, the state is separate entity from the people, legally speaking (which is why the people can sue it). A lawsuit against the government does not punish “the people.” It punishes the government, which may or may not subsequently raise taxes. Of course, the governemnt first has to consent to being sued. If they don’t think it’s good policy, they simply say, “no, sorry.”
In this particular instance I really couldn’t say whether such a lawsuit would be justifiable.
*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
**As for suing the government, the state is separate entity from the people, legally speaking (which is why the people can sue it). **
Yes, that’s true.
**A lawsuit against the government does not punish “the people.” It punishes the government, which may or may not subsequently raise taxes. **
The government creates no wealth of its own. It takes money in from tax-payers and spends it for the benefit of various recipients. A lawsuit against the government must take wealth from one group or the other.
I was wondering where you’d been! Sorry to hear about your loss. You might have fun with our Native New Yorker over there.
I think I do take your point, December – but you need to take into account that any legal procedure has two ends in sight: to right a wrong, insofar as that can be done, and to secure the rights of the individual as against either another individual or the corporate entity. (Even a criminal prosecution fills that second definition, in that it proceeds against a presumed-innocent individual with the attempt to prove him guilty – and preserves his rights in the process.) Whether it may have gone too far in securing rights, either in criminal prosecutions or in the claims arena, is subject to debate. That the individual does, in fact, have the right to individual redress for an error committed on him, the individual, by the mass of us acting corporately through our agents the civil servants and officials, is not subject to dispute. Unless you buy into “the King can do no wrong” – and I suspect nobody does in this day and age.
Everything you say is reasonable, Poly. An alternative, which I prefer, is to let the legislative and executive branches use their law-making power to provide specific redress and also to fix systematic problems. The advanges are:
Cost is more controllable
The redress gets paid to injured parties rather than most of it going to lawyers.
There can be specific weighing of the benefit paid to injured parties vs. the cost to taxpayers and to users of government services.
Neither the judicial nor the legislative approach guarantees anything like perfect justice. One might debate which approch is likely to come closer…
