Tort Reform - Limit the courts and increase the power of the Presidency?

[del]

Nice dodge.

nice try

really, del?

no, i was being kind.

 

[jillian]

nice try

really, del?

no, i was being kind.

 

[Oddball]

I want less centralized power.

There's a difference.

Not really. You still want someone to have control over how much you can sue someone for.

I don't know where you live, but here in NY, Albany is MORE dysfunctional than Washington.

That's NY's problem.

Let's leave the dysfunction limited to you poor schmucks....It'll be a great relief to those who live in the other 56 states.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I want less centralized power.

There's a difference.

Not really. You still want someone to have control over how much you can sue someone for.

I don't know where you live, but here in NY, Albany is MORE dysfunctional than Washington.

That's NY's problem.

Let's leave the dysfunction limited to you poor schmucks.

I guess what I'm missing is why it's ok for someone to control your life, as long as they're state government.

 

[Paulie]

I want less centralized power.

There's a difference.

Not really. You still want someone to have control over how much you can sue someone for.

I don't know where you live, but here in NY, Albany is MORE dysfunctional than Washington.

How about, yes there IS a difference. A HUGE one.

With localized power rather than centralized power, a community can much easier achieve what it desires for itself, and make changes as it goes.

And if someone doesn't like it, they can simply move to the next town over. Or state if that's the level of power for a law.

With centralized power, not only is a community severely limited in its ability affect any kind of change and achieve its desires, but an individual can not escape by simply moving to another town or state.

 

[del]

Nice dodge.

nice try

So you don't think that tort reform is more government control over what you can or cannot do?

That's like saying since the government gives out driver's licenses, it's not more government control to ban driving.

no, it's like saying that since the govt gives out driver's licenses, it's not more govt control to change the speed limit.

 

[del]

really, del?

no, i was being kind.

i do that occasionally, honest.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

nice try

So you don't think that tort reform is more government control over what you can or cannot do?

That's like saying since the government gives out driver's licenses, it's not more government control to ban driving.

no, it's like saying that since the govt gives out driver's licenses, it's not more govt control to change the speed limit.

Nevermind. I might be wrong on this one. Still don't support tort reform though.

 

[Toronado3800]

So everyone is for government control of how much the lives of your children are worth?

Remember, hospitals who do things wrong loose cases. It is very difficult to put a corporation in prison so you gotta hit it where you can, the bottom line. (think BP)

 

[Oddball]

Not really. You still want someone to have control over how much you can sue someone for.

I don't know where you live, but here in NY, Albany is MORE dysfunctional than Washington.

That's NY's problem.

Let's leave the dysfunction limited to you poor schmucks.

I guess what I'm missing is why it's ok for someone to control your life, as long as they're state government.

I can always stay the hell out of New York.

You're kind of fuzzy on the whole dual sovereignty thingy, aren't you?

 

[del]

So you don't think that tort reform is more government control over what you can or cannot do?

That's like saying since the government gives out driver's licenses, it's not more government control to ban driving.

no, it's like saying that since the govt gives out driver's licenses, it's not more govt control to change the speed limit.

I disagree. The limits advocated by tort reform don't exist already.

okay. we disagree.

try not to let it ruin your day

 

[theDoctorisIn]

no, it's like saying that since the govt gives out driver's licenses, it's not more govt control to change the speed limit.

I disagree. The limits advocated by tort reform don't exist already.

okay. we disagree.

try not to let it ruin your day

Check my edit. I concede this one to you guys.

Still don't support tort reform though.

 

[Toronado3800]

States are sovereign? Can Colorado decide where its rivers go?

 

[del]

States are sovereign? Can Colorado decide where its rivers go?

check the expiration dates on your meds.

 

[thereisnospoon]

States are sovereign? Can Colorado decide where its rivers go?

10th Amendment ....
Colorado cannot decide "where it's rivers go".....However a state can regulate how to use rivers that flow through it or originate within.
The Framers wrote the Constitution with the idea of limiting the power of the federal government. That the rights of the people are God given unalienable rights.
Over the last 70 years or so, the federal government has been growing in size and power.
This is achieved incrementally. Government gets away with usurping the COnstitution by granting entitlements and transfer payments. These require administration. Administration requires the existence of bureaucracy.
More admin and bureaucracy requires more employment and thus larger government.

Tort limits....These are needed.
It is much too easy to sue, so nstead of limiting that right, limit the size of awards.
Or instruct judges to set aside all verdicts where the plaintiff could not prove negligence.
Too often juries in civil trials ignore evidence and give away money based on emotion.
That has to stop...
Or we could go to the English system of "loser pays".
That gives the ingredient of a downside, of which there is none now, to suing.
Loser pays reduces the number of frivolous or emotionally driven suits.

 

[Ringel05]

Hell. Looks like we need tart reform.....

 

[Greenbeard]

Tort limits....These are needed.

So do you want tort reform imposed at the federal level or are you content to leave it to the states to decide?

 

[Oddball]

States are sovereign? Can Colorado decide where its rivers go?

Unfamiliar with the great western pastime of water rights haggling and feuding, aren't ya?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So everyone is for government control of how much the lives of your children are worth?

Remember, hospitals who do things wrong loose cases. It is very difficult to put a corporation in prison so you gotta hit it where you can, the bottom line. (think BP)

That is not the issue here. Tort reform would limit absurdly high awards for seemingly small offenses. Tort reform would also protect the lifetime earnings of those caught in situations not of their doing but happen to be the deepest pocket of the group.
For example.....Let's say you have a party at your home...You serve alcoholic bevs. One of your guests had arrived intoxicated did not drink while in your home and called it a night. He drives home and on his way, he runs off the road and causes someone to be severely injured. When questioned by the cops, the guest can only remember being at your place.
Later the injured party hires and attorney and gets a hold of the police report. The victim files a suit against the actual homeowner where he consumed and became drunk but beause he was in your home,the plaintiff sues you as well. This is a common practice by plaintiff's attorneys to go fishing for the deepest pockets. Even though you are not at fault, you must still defend yourself at great expense to your finances as well as your reputation. Now, with tort reform, you'd be more likely to be in the clear.
Personally I think these laws where one adult is responsible to regulate the behavior of another consenting adult while that adult is in your home is ludicrous.
A homeowner provides access to alcohol. He did not compel the person to take it. When the NJ legislature passed and the governor signed this law, I called it a "lawyer law"..A law designed by lawyers for the enrichment of lawyers
The way the system is set up, everyone is fair game in a lawsuit. It's just insane.

 

[Toronado3800]

10Th Ammendment...... The one the Civil War overturned about states having every power the Founding Fathers did not explicity give the feds?

So Colorado can keep all their water and give none to welfare needy Arizona and New Mexico? I dont recall reading squat about that in the constitution. I suppose you could liberally use the general welfare clause to enforce water rights laws on Colorado. Darn closet liberals lol.