Should states be allowed to interfer in lawsuits?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by shintao, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  2. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Not surprisingly your threat title does not reflect the substance.
    Government has not overstepped its authority. Setting damages is within the purview of gov't authority.
    Unlimited caps is beloved only of gold diggers and lawyers.
    Hurray for TN, one of the best states in the nation!
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    it's not government eclipsing it's authority. it's the "small government" hypocrites hating regulation unless it regulates what they hate... which is companies damaging others.

    i'm opposed to limiting liability until defendants limit the damage they cause by their negligence.
     
  4. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Here's a link to the article for non-mobile phone users. (I just removed the "m" in the URL):
    Tennessee House gives final approval to bill capping personal-injury damage awards » The Commercial Appeal
    Sounds ok to me, for the reasons already outlined by The Rabbi.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  5. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    This isn't a regulation. It's a law. Surely you know the difference, "counselor."
    There is no limit on the amount available to cover actual damage. This is typical puke spewed out by the lawyers' lobby. And no, they will not make a lawyer just because you suck their weiner, "counselor".
     
  6. Vanquish
    Offline

    Vanquish Vanquisher of shills

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,659
    Thanks Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +358
    I do agree that this is an example of hypocrites hating regulation unless it regulates what they hate.

    That being said...the government isn't overstepping it's bounds. Each state is allowed to limit damage awards and that's just the way it is.

    I think there needs to be a fine balance between limiting damages and consumer protections. Said another way - we need to have a system where catastrophic injuries ARE compensated when they happen...but that lottery-ticket justice doesnt hand everyone too much money and abuse the system.

    I happen to be a lawyer who does PI cases and I can tell you, tort reform has both pros and cons.
     
  7. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Please elaborate.
     
  8. Vanquish
    Offline

    Vanquish Vanquisher of shills

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,659
    Thanks Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +358
    You're right and wrong at the same time.

    Yes, regulations are different than laws. Congress enacts laws, while regulations are the rules of executive agencies, written to implement the authority of laws.

    Where you're wrong is that colloquially or informally people in debates and discussions refer to laws erroneously as regulations. So there you go...

    The point made was still a valid one. Republicans limit the shit they hate...then tag liberals for doing the same. It's a tired ass conservative trope, but it does exist. Conservatives say liberals want too many regulations. Liberals say conservatives want too few regulations.

    And here we have conservatives trying to limit (regulate, colloqially...really legislate) how much those terrible PI lawyers can get awards for.
     
  9. whitehall
    Online

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,877
    Thanks Received:
    4,349
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,857
    It's like asking if the states should interfere in drug use? The so-called "lawsuits" you refer to are based on Civil law. Like criminal law civil law is based on State and federal statutes. Far from "interfering" in civil suits states regulate the practice of civil law and license lawyers to practice.
     
  10. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    I dont care what people commonly and erroneously say. There is an important distinction: Regulations are issued by people not answerable to anyone. Laws are passed by elected officials who can be punished at the ballot box.
    It is not an example of Republican hypocrisy. First off, as mentioned it was done by people who are accountable. Secondly, it is well within the scope of state government powers. Thirdly, it does not put anyone out of business, even trial lawyers. Finally it tilts the balance of justice back towards defendents in suits, where juries have often bought into the class warfare rap and seek to punish companies, who often in return make their goods and services unavailable to those same jurors and their kin.
    Tort reform has been a GOP cornerstone for some time. There is no hypocrisy, except among plaintiff's attorneys who pretend their opposition stems from some kind of altruism.
     

Share This Page