|
Dan Lambe attacks Supreme Court decisions without regard to whether they represent correct applications of the law. He ignores pre-existing legal precedent or, in some cases, the tenuous position by the plaintiffs. The extent of Lambe’s criticism is that some of the court’s decisions do not reach the result that he would like.
Lambe’s group apparently subscribes to the theory that plaintiffs must win a majority of the cases for the system to be “fair”. Winning a majority of cases could not possibly indicate fairness because the party who lost would always claim the system was unfair.
If the win/loss ratio were the sole criteria for judging fairness, the only fair system would be one that guaranteed each “side” would win exactly half the cases regardless of what happened in the lower courts. Such a view of fairness has nothing to do with appropriate judicial decision-making.
Cora Sue Mach, President
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse Houston
|
