Home sellers can now lie to buyers without the threat of being sued for punitive damages, a divided Wisconsin Supreme Court said. According to the AP story, the more “liberal” side of the court saw judicial activism of the worst kind in this decision.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, one of three justices who broke with the four-member majority, said, “The decision is bad news for homeowners and sellers and makes Wisconsin the only state barring civil fraud cases in real estate transactions. The opinion opens the door for a home seller to “look the buyer in the eye, lie about the condition of the home, and escape legal consequences. Bradley noted that…(in some cases) a fraud lawsuit is the only option.”
She accused the justices in the majority of making law from the bench by expanding the state’s economic loss doctrine (from commercial to residential property).
Sure the liberal Justices can make their informed accusations, but the conservative courts activism is revealed in Vicki Zick’s comment, the attorney who won the case, when she said the court’s decision still leaves buyers with recourse. “It really just says we’re not going to let you sue for huge punitive damages,” she said.
We’re like little children, being told by our conservative authority figures, “we’re not going to let you sue for huge punitive damages.” Don’t you just love the errogant “we’re not going to let you…” scolding by these authoritarian social engineers?
I could challenge anyone to prove this is not judicial activism. But for most Republicans, proving anything is unnecessary since it’s part of their social order. It’s above reproach.
This is part of the conservative agenda of tort reform. The stacking of conservative courts will eventually phase out the ability of consumers to have their day in court when it comes to deception, injury and Constitutional guarantees.
5th Amendment: …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
6th Amendment: …In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, one of three justices who broke with the four-member majority, said, “The decision is bad news for homeowners and sellers and makes Wisconsin the only state barring civil fraud cases in real estate transactions. The opinion opens the door for a home seller to “look the buyer in the eye, lie about the condition of the home, and escape legal consequences. Bradley noted that…(in some cases) a fraud lawsuit is the only option.”
She accused the justices in the majority of making law from the bench by expanding the state’s economic loss doctrine (from commercial to residential property).
Sure the liberal Justices can make their informed accusations, but the conservative courts activism is revealed in Vicki Zick’s comment, the attorney who won the case, when she said the court’s decision still leaves buyers with recourse. “It really just says we’re not going to let you sue for huge punitive damages,” she said.
We’re like little children, being told by our conservative authority figures, “we’re not going to let you sue for huge punitive damages.” Don’t you just love the errogant “we’re not going to let you…” scolding by these authoritarian social engineers?
I could challenge anyone to prove this is not judicial activism. But for most Republicans, proving anything is unnecessary since it’s part of their social order. It’s above reproach.
This is part of the conservative agenda of tort reform. The stacking of conservative courts will eventually phase out the ability of consumers to have their day in court when it comes to deception, injury and Constitutional guarantees.
5th Amendment: …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
6th Amendment: …In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment