re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?

quote:

---

But, I would say that most of the posters, and probably even yourself see it as using the legal system to pursue things that otherwise should be inherently political.....or legislative.

---

But a lot of these alleged lawfare scenarios are civil in nature.

quote:

---

It's the new almost generally accepted way of expanding politics into the legal arena.

---

But how new is this? One of the foundational cases in the canon of US precedent is Marbury v. Madison, which was this exact thing.

I mean this goes back to Rome. Julius Caesar only hung around Gaul so long to avoid this very same stuff.

quote:

---

It is a political abuse of the legal system.

---

This then goes into the "how can you fix it"?

Take the Rudy Giulliani defamation case. Generally accepted as lawfare. It's, at heart, a pretty straightforward defamation case. How do you fix it?

Giulliani admitted to the defamation, even, so then they peel back the layer and retreat to the "he couldn't afford to defend himself" layer. How do you fix that across all civil cases? I mean hell, Bob Menendez's wife is claiming she can't afford lawyers, too. Is that lawfare now?

It's just a meandering, malleable definition that changes for each situation, and then within the situation (the above Rudy layer peeling).