This amendment simply says in conformity with the existing bill where you have a bad suit, one that is clearly frivolous and brought in bad faith, we are empowering with this procedure a Federal judge to recognize that the suit is frivolous and impose appropriate sanctions. That is a power that could conceivably be cobbled together under existing law but it is nowhere spelled out nearly as clearly or appropriately as it is in this amendment. Why are we so frightened that frivolous suits will be dismissed from court in an expeditious manner and appropriate court costs flowing from bad faith be imposed on litigants and lawyers who in that rare case file such frivolous suits?
Patricia Schroeder: “This amendment simply says in conformity with the existing bill where you have a bad suit, one that is clearly frivolous…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to frivolous lawsuits during a committee debate.
Share
More from Patricia Schroeder
as we go into any election, one of the hardest things is to figure out where the candidates really stand on issues. And when we go into any third-grade class in America and we ask the 8-year-olds, ``Okay, what is the best predictor of what…
the hard part is being to do this with a straight face because we are welcoming everyone to the Republicans' reform week. Yesterday in Roll Call, the majority leader said reform week was not meant to be ``floorcentric.'' Now what does that…
Today free speech has been frozen on the House floor. I never thought I could live to see that day. We have now had a ruling today that newspapers can discuss these issues, editorial boards can discuss these issues, but the Members of this…
I was very troubled by the Chair's ruling, and I am going to tell my colleagues why. My understanding is, what we are debating is the martial law rule which gives the Speaker the right to bring any resolution to the floor whenever he wants…





