General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How Bernie Sanders Helped Derail a Promising Legal Fight Against Gun Violence [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)You have consistently refused to acknowledge that protections against frivolous lawsuits already exist in the law.
Automakers already have protection against frivolous lawsuits. So do distillers and abortion clinics and everyone else. In fact, I notice that in your abortion clinic example, you didn't even specify what these right-wingers might be suing the abortion clinics for. The reason people don't try to sue automakers for vehicular homicide (or any of your other absurd examples) is because that lawsuit would get thrown out of court.
That's the reason your hypotheticals remain hypothetical.
Of course, if vehicular homicide was ravaging communities, and automakers designed cars with features that had no practical purpose other than vehicular homicide, and marketed their cars to murderers, and placed dealerships in areas where they knew they would be driving up the homicide rate, and so on, then maybe there would be a valid lawsuit.
Or maybe not. The courts would decide that. Exactly how it should be.
The only reason you think the lawsuits are "coercive" is because you carry an extreme right-wing ideology when it comes to the issue of guns. You think gun makers are special and shouldn't be subject to equal justice under the law.
Obviously, everyone who has every been sued for anything would love to be able to simply turn to politicians they own to be able to label the lawsuits "coercive" and carve out a special loophole for them. But that isn't justice. Justice should be applied equally to everyone. No special laws for industries with powerful lobbyists.