I'll take a minute to respond the the loser pays provision proposal.
Its really not all its cracked up to be. Here's why:
1. The people in the right don't always win.
2. If a middle class family has been wronged in some horrible way (i.e. death of a child) and they believe, with just cause, that someone is responsible. They have the choice of (1) suing, and risking their home, college funds for the remaining daughters, car, credit rating, possibly a business (all to pay the lawyer fees generated by the defendant in the case) or (2) not sue and risk none of that. Is it right that they be asked to risk all of that in the pursuit of justice for a dead child or illegal business dealings or fraudulent conveyance of real estate or theft on intellectual property, etc. etc.?
3. It won't stop corporations from suing each other. Its a cost of business and they can afford it. Corporate lawsuits make up over 60 percent of the litigation in the country.
4. It doesn't affect the rich guy. He can afford it. (also, what happens if the rich guy sues the poor guy? Is the poor guy supposed to pay for the rich guy's lawyers even though the rich guy initiated suit? Isn't that just a more civilized form of blackmail? If that's the law, why wouldn't the poor guy always do what the rich guy wants?) The old argument for this used to be, hey, the poor guy can just file for protection under the bankruptcy laws. Not anymore, congress just eliminated most of the consumer bankruptcy protections. Interestingly, they have left in place most of the business bankruptcy provisions.... (more on that on request).
For those of you intersted in reading more on the subject, see Charles W. Branham III, Note, It Couldn't Happen Here: The English
Rule-But Not in South Carolina, 49 S.C.L. REV. 971, 973-75 (1998).
I wrote it.
Hope this doesn't seem too preachy, I'm just continually disturbed by people's willingness to give away many of their rights and protections so freely.
Flame away