If they didn’t, then the result would be constant SLAPP suits against politicians that are disliked by a certain type of asshole.
What should happen is that money should be instantly applied to the politician as debt when the case is lost.
That’s a good middle ground of protecting them from the worst actors, but not from their actual actions.
I would also love it if a plaintiff attorney could act as a prosecutor in cases of corruption or violated rights, with the ability to send politicians (and cops) to prison when they violate rights.
If public defenders are good enough for everyone else, they’re good enough for politicians. Maybe they’ll actually get some funding and support that way.
You don’t get a public defender for civil lawsuits, which are the majority of those kinds of lawsuits. So no, public defenders aren’t good enough for everyone, because they don’t exist for civil lawsuits.
Yeah. That’s the proper response to your statement being wrong. Lol. . .
Yes, the system has issues–the issue being that the loser in the suit doesn’t take the burden of reasonable attorney costs for both parties. That alone would fix most of it. Government doesn’t need to give anyone a right to a civil lawyer.
Yes, but if we changed the rules we could, for example, add funding to the office of the Public Defenders and they could hire a special lawyer for civil cases against public servants available to anyone who doesn’t wish to pay for their own laywers.
Why? That accomplishes only increased government costs when the same accessibility could be brought about by allowing the loser of the case to take on reasonable lawyer fees of both people.
If they didn’t, then the result would be constant SLAPP suits against politicians that are disliked by a certain type of asshole.
What should happen is that money should be instantly applied to the politician as debt when the case is lost.
That’s a good middle ground of protecting them from the worst actors, but not from their actual actions.
I would also love it if a plaintiff attorney could act as a prosecutor in cases of corruption or violated rights, with the ability to send politicians (and cops) to prison when they violate rights.
The current arrangement is not acceptable.
If public defenders are good enough for everyone else, they’re good enough for politicians. Maybe they’ll actually get some funding and support that way.
Agreed ,the only defenders should be public and appointed by a lottery. If you can butu a better defender the system is corrupt.
This is the way!
You don’t get a public defender for civil lawsuits, which are the majority of those kinds of lawsuits. So no, public defenders aren’t good enough for everyone, because they don’t exist for civil lawsuits.
Yep that is an accurate description of the way the broken system currently works. Thanks!
Yeah. That’s the proper response to your statement being wrong. Lol. . .
Yes, the system has issues–the issue being that the loser in the suit doesn’t take the burden of reasonable attorney costs for both parties. That alone would fix most of it. Government doesn’t need to give anyone a right to a civil lawyer.
“We should change the way things work.” “Thats not how things work” great argument buddy, glad we could hash this out.
I mean you stayed.
as a present which is not the case, since they’re not in civil lawsuits
Yes, but if we changed the rules we could, for example, add funding to the office of the Public Defenders and they could hire a special lawyer for civil cases against public servants available to anyone who doesn’t wish to pay for their own laywers.
Why? That accomplishes only increased government costs when the same accessibility could be brought about by allowing the loser of the case to take on reasonable lawyer fees of both people.