Liability
Locked Account.
They spent the last two years, in particilar, demonizing "trial lawyers" and turning it into a curse word. But all of a sudden its a badge of honor and patriotism.
Just because a FarRW nutter like Levin's decided to consider mucking up the legal system with his nonsensical and false claims.
CLASSIC!!!
P.S. - it was actually more like the last 4 years, because they ramped up the demonization of Lawyers once they saw Obama on the scene and wanted to shut him down.
Nonsense. What conservatives have voiced some objection to is the trial lawyers who get rich suing the bejeezuz outta medical corporations, hospitals, manufacturers, doctors, etc., all over the unhappy OUTCOME of some medical procedures without acknowledging that medicine doesn't come with guarantees.
Nobody objects to suing the snot out of a doctor or hospital for actual malpractice that causes actual injury, imposing actual expenses. The objection (which dishonest libbies like you try to paper over) is to the resort to such lawsuits ABSENT genuine negligence. The COSTS of engaging in "defensive medicine" for truly frivolous lawsuits is staggering.
Threatening Matthews with a lawsuit -- which is to say, advising him that words can have consequences -- is not the same thing as filing a frivolous lawsuit. And even if Levin were to proceed, and even if it turned out to BE an actually baseless "frivolous" suit, there are remedies available to the aggrieved party. Matthews would (a) probably get any frivolous lawsuit tossed out. AND, depending on jurisdiction, he might even get an award of costs and legal fees. His lawyers might get creative and counter-sue Levin for the malicious prosecution of a frivolous lawsuit.
But all of that speculation is WAY premature. Levin hasn't filed any suit (yet). he may never do so. And if he ever does, it might not prove to be "frivolous" at all.
Levin REGULARLY (through landmark legal) engages in litigation. He is not one to engage in knee-jerk rhetoric about all lawyers. Not even about all trial lawyers. And there's still no hypocrisy inherent in a lawyer who criticizes an overly litigious society on the one hand using the legal system (where appropriate) on the other hand.