Ack! Bush tries to curb class actions suits!

[Ramo]

I'm not. Obama actually seems to have a brain in his head, which probably doesn't sit too well with you. Looks like you'll have to keep turning to Barbara Boxer for braindead, knee-jerk leftism...

Good legislation, BTW. Class action suits have been out of hand for a while now.

Yes, damn that Imran, blindly following Barbara Boxer.

I don't object to the damage caps that much, but these restrictions on class action suits are crap. Moderate tort reform is fine, but this is rediculous.

But you can keep turning to Teh Bush for retarded stereo-types of differing opinions.

[notyoueither]

There are entire nations, some of them civilised, that make do without any class actions whatsoever.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ramo
[q]
Yes, damn that Imran, blindly following Barbara Boxer.

I was talking about you, not Imran. He has his own reasons for opposing this legislation quite different from yours (or so I hope)...

[Ramo]

I find it amusing that you know my reasons for opposing this legislation (and find them so objectionable) when I've written so little about it. Believe it or not, way back when before the era of Shrub, there used to be some aspects of the Republican economic agenda that I preferred over the Democrats. I don't think that's the case any more though.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see why you'd be "disappointed" in Obama's vote unless you thought he wasn't being sufficiently liberal. Then again, maybe I've been reading too much Kos...

[Ramo]

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, not a liberal. I don't think that tort law is any real substitute for strong unions. I just thought Obama would have more sense than to vote for it.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm glad he had the sense to vote for it.

Obama (so far)

[Ned]

Imran, all I can say is that you are now solidly in the leftist camp. Class action abuse is having a crippling effect on America to the sole benefit of trial lawyers, who contribute heavily to the Democrats and who actually run for president (Edwards) on the Democrat ticket.

Why don't you just give it up and go become a card carrying member. You are a fellow traveler as it is.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's called preventing overloading Federal courts. And it's also done all the time in other cases (people from different states suing other people from other different states), though if the defendant wanted to, he could remove it to federal courts (for diversity).

Interesting that in the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of your posts that I've read, you haven't previously mentioned any concern over the caseload of the Federal Courts. What a coincidence eh? And now it's such a problem that preventing abuses by private parties and the lawyers isn't worth doing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you haven't previously mentioned any concern over the caseload of the Federal Courts

The caseload of Federal Court are ALWAYS a concern. Ask anyone that has an admiralty case, where the Federal Court is the only option. The Federal Court system isn't going to like this, though, because for the longest time they've been sending cases like this down to the states because they didn't want to be more swamped. Ask a Federal Judge.

Class action abuse is having a crippling effect on America to the sole benefit of trial lawyers

Class actions have also stopped companies from keeping dangerous wares on the market. The Ford Pinto was not taken off the streets by government regulation, but by class action suits.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, all I can say is that you are now solidly in the leftist camp. Class action abuse is having a crippling effect on America to the sole benefit of trial lawyers, who contribute heavily to the Democrats and who actually run for president (Edwards) on the Democrat ticket.

Why don't you just give it up and go become a card carrying member. You are a fellow traveler as it is.

So your solution to individual lawyers abusing the law is to... make it extremely difficult for all wronged people to file law suites? Wouldn't it be more logical to punish the people who file frivolous law suites?

Of course that really isn't the point is it? No, Bush wants to damage the Democrat's finances and give corporations legal immunity for their wrong doing. Other wise he'd get the bar association to improve their ethics rules and disbar lawyers who file frivolous cases, wouldn't he?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So your solution to individual lawyers abusing the law is to... make it extremely difficult for all wronged people to file law suites? Wouldn't it be more logical to punish the people who file frivolous law suites?

Yep, but, of course, as you say, that isn't the point. The idea is to punish all lawyers so they'll have less to give to the Democrats.

Of course they don't care if they have to take away the rights of ordinary people who may lose limbs because of hospital negligence or get seriously injured by a corporation's malfunctioning product.

Other wise he'd get the bar association to improve their ethics rules and disbar lawyers who file frivolous cases, wouldn't he?

What more would you have the ethics rules do? From what I've seen they are pretty strong and penalize a LOT more than most people realize. And lawyers that keep filing frivolous suits are subject to penalties in just about every bar association in the country.

Here is Colorado's for instance:

http://www.cobar.org/group/display.cfm?GenID=2049

Georgia's is within this advisory opinion:

http://www.gabar.org/op871.asp

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


So your solution to individual lawyers abusing the law is to... make it extremely difficult for all wronged people to file law suites? Wouldn't it be more logical to punish the people who file frivolous law suites?

Of course that really isn't the point is it? No, Bush wants to damage the Democrat's finances and give corporations legal immunity for their wrong doing. Other wise he'd get the bar association to improve their ethics rules and disbar lawyers who file frivolous cases, wouldn't he?

Oerdin, no one is eliminating worthy cases from proceeding. The new rules only prevent abuse. PERIOD. And the only people who are against the new rules are

1) trial lawyers (and their paid lackeys); and

2) enemies of capitalism.

Which are you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

1) trial lawyers (and their paid lackeys); and

2) enemies of capitalism.

Which are you?

You forgot:

3) defenders of injured victims

[DinoDoc]

Maybe I'm missing something and I'm not sure if this was covered earler but how does a rule that prevents forum shopping stop class action suits?