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.
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."
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.
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.
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....
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.