Time for Tort Reform? Check this out... (page 10)

Marvin Shilmer

JWoods writes:

"[F]or some strange reason,... liberals deny that resistance to tort reform is part of their agenda."

Left wingers will on one hand agree tort reform is a good thing, even a necessary thing. Then on the other hand the same brood never brings tort reform in the way of legislation. Amazing how that works.

But then we have right wingers like George Dubya who gawks about conserative values and then spends taxpayers back to the stoneage.

We need doctors, carpenters, plumbers, social workers and the like in our legislatures (state and federal). Anything but lawyers!!! Frankly, right now I'd support a constitutional amendment expressing it a conflict of interest to have lawyers writing and framing the very laws that will continue the very enterprise they engage by profession in the private sector. I wish I could write the rules that I could play under for pay! But, that would be unAmerican of me, wouldn't it.

Marvin Shilmer

JWoods

Frankly, right now I'd support a constitutional amendment expressing it a conflict of interest to have lawyers writing and framing the very laws that will continue the very enterprise they engage by profession in the private sector.

Beacon of reality of the day & the thread.

As a rider to that amendment, disbar the various trial lawyers associations from any lobbyist activity or political contributions.

Marvin Shilmer

JWoods writes:

"As a rider to that amendment, disbar the various trial lawyers associations from any lobbyist activity or political contributions."

How could I have overlooked that? Shame on me.

Done!!!

Marvin Shilmer

beksbks

owners of private vehicles received a government subsidy of $X billion in 1982 for the free use of vehicular traffic control, communications and other road assistance?

Burn, can you remind me what exactly this entails?

beksbks

It took 2 years for them to get around to admitting there was a problem and fixing it

From everything I have read this morning, this is the crux of the Nader vs Auto industry issue. (By the way, thanks Woods, after all this reading today, I have more respect for Nader then I did previously).

Is it not obvious and interesting that people who adamantly and often post on the left have come here upholding the judgement against the bat company as good social jurisdiction? They support Nader even if he wants to interfere with the public free choice of product in the name of consumerism.

Is it not equally obvious that people like myself who usually or almost always post conservative views, have come here denouncing the judgement as excessive and an example of the need for a cleanup of the tort system? They, like myself, have posted against Naderism in general. (just as the American public have voted at least 4 times in the presidential election against his tirades).

And yet, for some strange reason, the liberals deny that resistance to tort reform is part of their agenda. This I cannot understand, unless, of course, they wish to hide it for some strange reason.

Ummmm no. First of all, the persons who might be seen on this thread to have upheld the judgement, are not on the left. Second, as a liberal, I did not deny or confirm any resistance to tort reform. I have received no information on the subject though I asked you to link it.

beksbks

They support Nader even if he wants to interfere with the public free choice of product in the name of consumerism.

Haven't actually seen much in the way of support for Nader here. More trying to get at the truth, not relying on hearsay and hyperbole. And from what I have read today, his main focus appears to have been corporate honesty and integrity, so the consumer can make an informed decision.