Protection from Criminals Act (PASSED)

[Clark Kent]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Potus

[Potus]

The story sparking this bill and significant controversy in real life occurred in my home state of West Virginia. Pill addicts are suing doctors for what they deem to be over prescribing and they're getting significant damages from it. Folks can sue car companies, insurance companies, and each other for auto related injuries even if the injuries wouldn't have happened had the claimant followed the seat belt laws.

This bill clears out a lot of junk lawsuits, lowers insurance premiums of every sort for every citizen, and makes our civil litigation system much, much fairer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support this measure.


I would question though, would this limit legitimate claims? Say when a criminal act has been committed and person suffered injury financially, would they still be able to seek civil action?

[Potus]

I support this measure.


I would question though, would this limit legitimate claims? Say when a criminal act has been committed and person suffered injury financially, would they still be able to seek civil action?

I see what you're saying. Let me amend it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I also like this bill. Civil actions serve an important role in mitigating damage to citizens. A problem arises though when claims arise that are realistically spurious.

[Clark Kent]

I also support this bill, but I feel like it could be worded better to be less vague and potentially confusing.

[Prince of Salem]

I'll waif for that amendment to make an statement about this.

[Potus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would strongly object to this bill if it extended to criminal courts, as it would effectively overturn Miranda v. Arizona, but this seems like a good idea as far as civil courts are concerned.

[Potus]

I would strongly object to this bill if it extended to criminal courts, as it would effectively overturn Miranda v. Arizona, but this seems like a good idea as far as civil courts are concerned.

It's good to know you would oppose a hypothetical bill that I also wouldn't vote for.

[pikachu]

I like the bill, but do agree it could be phrased a bit less confusingly...

[Senator Cris]

I like the bill, but do agree it could be phrased a bit less confusingly...

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like the bill, but do agree it could be phrased a bit less confusingly...

     I think that Senator Potus's amendment does a fine job of handling that.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Has the amendment been adopted?

[Potus]

Has the amendment been adopted?

If we don't know what's happening with this, I move for unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Has the amendment been adopted?

If we don't know what's happening with this, I move for unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Second.

[Clark Kent]

I was under the impression that amendments by the bill's sponsor are automatically adopted. if that is not the case, then we will move to a 24-hour vote on the amendment.

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[Prince of Salem]

AYE

(I support the bill now BTW)

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE

[Potus]

Aye.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye

[Clark Kent]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Clark Kent]

I will extend debate for an additional 24 hours before moving on to a final vote.