Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2011, 10:19 AM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,546,690 times
Reputation: 1951

Advertisements

David Freddoso: Don't laugh, this could happen to you next | David Freddoso | Columnists | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/04/david-freddoso-dont-laugh-could-happen-you-next - broken link)

Quote:
"Republicans in Congress are trying to change back to the old rules about frivolous suits, but don't get your hopes up, kid. There is absolutely no way President Obama is going to sign their bill, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, or LARA. We trial lawyers give about 99 percent of our donations to Democrats, and we give a lot of money. Joe Biden once said that along with the unions, we're the only thing separating him and his party from the barbarians. No offense, but I think that makes you one of the barbarians."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2011, 10:37 AM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,430,619 times
Reputation: 1257
I'm not falling for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,546,690 times
Reputation: 1951
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
I'm not falling for it.
Ummm...did you read the article?

And if so, what part of it do you disagree with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 12:44 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,054,795 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10 View Post
Ummm...did you read the article?

And if so, what part of it do you disagree with?
What it is there to read? There isn't a single paragraph of substance in it. In point of fact it is nothing more than a campaign ad (and it would make a nice campaign ad) disguised as a news story.
"Republicans in Congress are trying to change back to the old rules about frivolous suits, but don't get your hopes up, kid. There is absolutely no way President Obama is going to sign their bill, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, or LARA. We trial lawyers give about 99 percent of our donations to Democrats, and we give a lot of money. Joe Biden once said that along with the unions, we're the only thing separating him and his party from the barbarians. No offense, but I think that makes you one of the barbarians."
At least post reference the bill or just post a link to it.

Read The Bill: H.R. 2393 [109th] - GovTrack.us
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 12:46 PM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,114,106 times
Reputation: 8527
My version of Tort reform. You lose the suit, you pay the costs.

Done.

...next...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 02:02 PM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,546,690 times
Reputation: 1951
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
My version of Tort reform. You lose the suit, you pay the costs.

Done.

...next...
That seems to be the general consensus of rational, intelligent people.

But for reasons that I can't figure out liberals and democrats are allergic to the logic of that idea.

Its weird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 02:03 PM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,546,690 times
Reputation: 1951
Quote:
In point of fact it is nothing more than a campaign ad (and it would make a nice campaign ad) disguised as a news story.
Its an opinion piece by a columnist not a news story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2011, 02:04 PM
 
4,911 posts, read 3,430,619 times
Reputation: 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10 View Post
Ummm...did you read the article?

And if so, what part of it do you disagree with?
The part that says anything the Republicans pass would help this guy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2011, 11:11 AM
 
1,233 posts, read 1,218,578 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10 View Post
That seems to be the general consensus of rational, intelligent people.

But for reasons that I can't figure out liberals and democrats are allergic to the logic of that idea.

Its weird.
Wrong.

I do not know anybody that thinks the losing side should not pay costs.

The 'I'm always righties' want to put caps on judicial awards. That is nothing but protection for big business interests that can afford to outspend an injured party and their legal representatives. They can run up the legal bills until it is not worth fighting against them.

Imagine telling those fat cats that they have to limit what they pay their own lawyers in order for limits to be allowed.

Can you imagine what the U.S. Supreme Court would say? If free speech is now money, then any award limits should also be illegal.

Damage awards are something that should be left up to juries, not politicians or judges.

Who pays costs are a non starter designed to disguise the real issues hiding behind Tort reform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2011, 11:15 AM
 
46,289 posts, read 27,108,503 times
Reputation: 11129
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer2 View Post
Wrong.

I do not know anybody that thinks the losing side should not pay costs.

The 'I'm always righties' want to put caps on judicial awards. That is nothing but protection for big business interests that can afford to outspend an injured party and their legal representatives. They can run up the legal bills until it is not worth fighting against them.

Imagine telling those fat cats that they have to limit what they pay their own lawyers in order for limits to be allowed.

Can you imagine what the U.S. Supreme Court would say? If free speech is now money, then any award limits should also be illegal.

Damage awards are something that should be left up to juries, not politicians or judges.

Who pays costs are a non starter designed to disguise the real issues hiding behind Tort reform.
So 10 million is a good price for spilling hot coffee in my lap...after the cup say "HOT"?

Really....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top