The argument goes as follows: if losing a suit opened you to being countersued, that would make it even less likely for a "little guy" to go up against someone with power. (As the little guy likely has worse lawyers, and if they lose, now suddenly they open themselves to a countersuit.)
That is just a stupid argument. The lawyers shouldn't matter ! THE LAW SHOULD!
(As the little guy likely has worse lawyers, and if they lose, now suddenly they open themselves to a countersuit.)
And that is exactly how it should be. You make a claim ... THAT IS BEING JUDGED ... After the TRAIL we know it is NOT TRUE ... BECAUSE THE TRIAL HAS SETTLED IT ... SO YOU HAVE TO PAY ! Either way ... someone FUCKED UP.
A somewhat serious answer:
The argument goes as follows: if losing a suit opened you to being countersued, that would make it even less likely for a "little guy" to go up against someone with power. (As the little guy likely has worse lawyers, and if they lose, now suddenly they open themselves to a countersuit.)
That is just a stupid argument. The lawyers shouldn't matter ! THE LAW SHOULD!
And that is exactly how it should be. You make a claim ... THAT IS BEING JUDGED ... After the TRAIL we know it is NOT TRUE ... BECAUSE THE TRIAL HAS SETTLED IT ... SO YOU HAVE TO PAY ! Either way ... someone FUCKED UP.
Agreed. However, "shouldn't matter" is not the same as "doesn't matter".
That just makes the original argument MORE STUPID!