It is obvious from the slanted reporting that writer Lawrence Hurley does not agree with the court decision to uphold the law—passed by elected representatives—to prevent prolonged, expensive litigation that primarily put money in plaintiff attorneys’ pockets with coupons going to the people they represent. Contrary to Mr. Hurley’s story, workers do not have a “right” to force these expensive lawsuits. “Rights” is a loaded word almost always employed by liberals (and Mr. Hurley) to describe something THEY should have. The court interpreted the law as it was written. Our true “rights” are contained first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They are not based on a reporter’s biases.
Good for the Supreme Court siding with business over the sue happy Democratic Lawyer lobby.
It is obvious from the slanted reporting that writer Lawrence Hurley does not agree with the court decision to uphold the law—passed by elected representatives—to prevent prolonged, expensive litigation that primarily put money in plaintiff attorneys’ pockets with coupons going to the people they represent. Contrary to Mr. Hurley’s story, workers do not have a “right” to force these expensive lawsuits. “Rights” is a loaded word almost always employed by liberals (and Mr. Hurley) to describe something THEY should have. The court interpreted the law as it was written. Our true “rights” are contained first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They are not based on a reporter’s biases.