Bush on Lawyers

K

kelsey

New member
PRESIDENT BUSH ON "FRIVOLOUS" LAWSUITS . . . At the White House Economic Summit last week, President Bush said that frivolous lawsuits have helped drive the total cost of America's tort system to $230 billion a year, more than twice the amount Americans spend on automobiles. Tort costs in America are higher than in any other major industrialized nation and are a major drag on the economy. "To keep the economy growing strong in the future, we have got to lift the burden, and reform our legal systems . . . I'm looking forward to working with Congress to get legal reform done quickly in the upcoming legislative session," said the president, who will promote his agenda in his State of the Union address next month. No industry knows better the cost of such "junk" lawsuits than the firearms industry, which has spent an estimated $200 million defending itself against them and will be supporting the reintroduction of a bill in Congress that will provide protection against them. The Washington Times covered the issue.



Kelsey
www.luvtohunt.com
 
Yeah, I thought it was hilarious Sunday when Andy Card on ABC's This Week was asked by George Stephanopolous whether an investigative panel should be formed to look at the FDA, in light of Celebrex being found to possibly have some serious ill effects (previously unknown), even though passing FDA scrutiny. His response was that no, the FDA is doing a fantastic job, and what we need to focus on is Shrub's "tort reform" plans. So let's get this straight: The drug companies and the FDA are in an unholy union to butt rape the public's health to ensure their ongoing profits, and the answer is to make it HARDER to sue them for such grievances? Quite confusing to say the least. Tort reform=peasant control, just like gun control=peasant control. It strips the PEOPLE (juries) of a fundamental power over the government and corporate interests.

Yes, the gun industry lawsuits are junk, so an extremely limited, targeted reform is in order there, but as for general "tort reform", this is just a big gift to corporate millionaires, sold to the public by lies, at the expense of stripping power from the people.

Tort costs in America are higher than in any other major industrialized nation
Click to expand...

OF COURSE THEY ARE - since we value our healthcare quality so much - our tort system is the primary way in which such quality is ensured. What do we want to do, race to the bottom of that list, so that we have $hit socialized medicine. Are we trying to tie Bangladesh, or some other country, in such costs?

and are a major drag on the economy
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. As Shrub told us pre-election, the economy is doing fine.
 
So let's get this straight: The drug companies and the FDA are in an unholy union to butt rape the public's health to ensure their ongoing profits, and the answer is to make it HARDER to sue them for such grievances?
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's get it straight... rather than simply buy into the liberal media BS surrounding this latest load of crap with regard to the FDA.

Let's begin over 20 years ago when a study on rats determined that said rats eating saccharine would develop tumors, ergo saccharine could possibly cause tumors in humans. Fast forward a few years past the chaotic aftermath of the idiotic study, and we find that the "study" involved force feeding rats what would have been the equivalent of hundreds of pounds of saccharine per human per year.

But where would the media hype fun be in something like that?

Or how about the media BS as early as this year? Remember the terrible "shortage" of Flu vaccinations??? Oddly enough the TV news (w)anchors are sniveling and begging people to come and get their shots now before hundreds of THOUSANDS of vaccinations have to be tossed out because they will have EXPIRED!!!!!

But where would the media hype fun be in something like that?

Even more recently we find two separate studys that follow groups of people with a debilitating illness (rheumatoid arthritis) who - in the case of only one of the studies - show an increased risk of heart failure or stroke. Here's a clue for you, free of charge, correlation DOES NOT!!! equal causation.

So, we have two studies that in the first place show different results, and we have studies that - I will bet my last dollar - do not control for all possible variables that may effect the outcome of said studies. For example: A person taking (let's say Vioxx) may in fact experience an increased risk of heart attack or stroke, but the increased risk may have no direct causal link to the damned drug... it may be that a person that has in fact suffered from the effects of arthritis (hence making them eligible for the study) has over the course of the years led a sedentary lifestyle; then through the miracle of modern medicine they find themselves able to move about and be active for perhaps the first time in their adult life, and subsequently through their increased activity they suffer a heart attack or stroke. And that is just one of a myriad of possibilities.

But where would the media hype fun be in something like that? Better to bleat like sheep and run about squealing that the sky is about to fall. How pathetic.

So a bunch of people who have enjoyed a greater quality of life are now going to have to wait until the media hype smoke clears before resuming use of a drug that will almost certainly be shown to have no ill effects. In the meanwhile liberals will simply continue to do the only thing they are capable of... contribute nothing to society other than their annoying bleats and blubberings of disappointment. :barf:
 
For every 320 Americans there is a lawyer — indeed, with 799,960 lawyers among a population of 255,600,000, America may have the highest proportion of lawyers per capita in the world. In England, there are 694 Englishmen per lawyer, in France 2,461 Frenchmen per lawyer and in Japan 8,195 Japanese per lawyer. Lest you think the Japanese are exceptionally poorly served, you may wish to reflect that there are 15,748 Koreans per lawyer, with a mere 2,813 lawyers for Korea's population of 44,300,000.
Click to expand...
Tort reform=peasant control, just like gun control=peasant control
Click to expand...
I don't see that at all.
 
Hey Fred, not all is smoke and mirrors:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041221/D8744AJ00.html

found that patients taking naproxen had a 50 percent greater incidence of cardiovascular events - heart attack or stroke - than patients taking placebo.
Click to expand...

I'd rather see gramps on asprin than him keeled over 10 years early.

As for Vioxx, the company itself knew for the last four years there were dangerous side effects and never came forward. This is corporate greed and the lack of due diligence, not about keeping people away from good drug therapy.

Without the media to jump on them do you think the FDA or Pharma would give a damn?
 
people who dont believe in tort reform never been sued or never been involved in legal issues.

as a former law student (dropped out because of all the bull**** and couldnt live with myself after being on the "inside") I've witness many frivilous law suits that eventually lost but cost the defendant 10's of thousands of dollars to defend

Lawyers who file these junk law suits hoping to make a quick buck need to have their licence pull.

After a trial that I witness from beginning to end we interviewed both sides to understand their techniques and other bull

well the lawyer who filed the suit never thought it would make it to trial...he thought he could make a quick buck on the settlement but the insurance company and the defendant said enough was enough and fought the case and the plaintiff lost and deservingly so

but the point is.....alot of junk law suits dont win......its the high cost of defending them that is killing the system along with people opting to settle..........fight fight fight.......never settle! If you settle they win........you fight...they lose...they pay court fees and sometimes your legal fees
so if you have to pay (if you lose)...might as well put up a fight and make it difficult for the scum.

argh..i hate junk lawsuits..
 
Who knew that there were unholy unions and butt rape involved. I read the whole article and didn't see it mentioned.
 
The problem is not really "frivilous lawsuits"; it is a corrupted Judiciary and Congress, the latter who is responsible to oversea the former. They do not need to pass more laws - they need to take action against judges who are not dismissing cases when obviously appropriate. This applies to a great number of criminal court judges as well.
 
Congress has NO control over STATE judges;

only Federal ones. As many of these suits are brought in state courts, Congress is a poor, partial solution.

Note also that some states ELECT judges, providing a far more direct remedy. ;)
 
Bush and Lawyers

The problem with the US tort system is not the lawyers but rather your crazy cost rules.

If you were to abolish contingency fees and introduce a system where the looser can be ordered to pay the winners costs- and cost orders can be made personally against lawyers in some instances, where they commence proceedings that have no legal merit, you would not have the tort problem you have.

The system I have described works in the UK and Australia so it should work in the US.
 
THERE'S a track record!

"If you were to abolish contingency fees and introduce a system where the looser [sic] can be ordered to pay the winners costs- and cost orders can be made personally against lawyers in some instances, where they commence proceedings that have no legal merit, you would not have the tort problem you have."

We HAVE that - see Rule 11 sanctions.

You would also make it extremely difficult for the average injured person to even BRING the claim needed to obtain recovery. Insurance companies and corporations already abuse the disparity in cash reserves to force inequitable settlements - you want to make it even easier for them to do so.

"The system I have described works in the UK and Australia so it should work in the US."

Oh, like their gun control laws? Thanks SO much! :barf:
 
You would also make it extremely difficult for the average injured person to even BRING the claim needed to obtain recovery. Insurance companies and corporations already abuse the disparity in cash reserves to force inequitable settlements - you want to make it even easier for them to do so.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You would make it IMPOSSIBLE for all but the wealthiest individuals to seek redress in the courts. Furthermore, the contingency fee arrangement puts the onus on the lawyer to assess the viability of every potential claim before agreeing to accept retention. If you think that corporations and insurance companies are settling cases on the mere threat of litigation, you are living in a dream world. Every case is a war, and I fight that war every day for people whose lives have been turned upside down by the negligence of some individual or company. I don't sue fast-food chains, gun makers or drug companies. I handle your run of the mill auto and premise cases that often leave peoples' lives in utter chaos. Not one of the people I represent would have the resources to hire an attorney on an hourly basis (and would pay far more than the 1/3 I get if they could), and would inevitably wind up on medicaid and/or welfare if they could not seek compensation through the legal system.

You guys railing against the woeful state of our legal system sound like Michael Moore and the Million Moms who rail against the Second Amendment. You hear about the ridiculous and extreme cases that make the headlines, and have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how the system works in 99.999% of the cases that actually exist. I hope none of you should ever have to find out first hand.

For the Tory poster who suggested the English Rule followed in the UK and Australia - tell me what else you like about their legal systems. We fought a war to get out from under their "system."

RS2
I actually am a lawyer - and damn proud of it!
 
This is getting pretty heated so I don't mean to create an insult to anyone. One of the biggest problems I can see is that we no longer enforce the ideas of personal responsibility. As a business owner, I spend thousands of dollars in liability insurance in case one of my customers goes home and shoots himself or someone else. I am sorry, but in this day in age there is alway an attorney around to make it seem like my fault. I know several attorneys personally and enjoy the conversations we have. Most of them still believe in a idealistic society where law governs. What I find even more amazing is the fact that you can be sued for ANYTHING. If I don't scrape my walks, I am liable. If someone trips coming up my walk, I am liable. If someone breaks into my house and shoot and kill the bastard or worse wound him, I am liable. Torts are a route to help adress the claims of individuals who have been wronged. Unfortunately, from my perpective, they have been perversed with greed to a level that makes them almost as bad as the "corporate giants" we like to bash. I salute the attorney who champions the cause those who need help, I condem the ones who view our legal system as route to my pocket.
 
Bingo!

"One of the biggest problems I can see is that we no longer enforce the ideas of personal responsibility."

Dead on. We see this self-absorbed myopia everywhere; not just in court.

The screaming brats running around restaurants and stores because the cretins that spawned them won't take responsibility for their actions. The obnoxious buffoon bellowing into his/her cell phone at movies, restaurants, wherever because they don't acknowledge the duty not to offend or interfere with others. The fools who fall victim to their own stupidity, wilful ignorance and irresponsible actions (McDonald's made me FAAAAAAT!) whining, suing, complaining that it's all someone else's fault. Make your own list.

Did the lawyers do this? Hardly. This is the result of a sea-change in social thinking, brought about by spoiled baby-boomers (and yes, I'm one). Lawyers can BRING frivolous lawsuits; JURIES award the damages. Remember THAT, all you who go off on anti-intellectual rants thinly disguised as "tort reform advocacy." :barf:


"If someone breaks into my house and shoot and kill the bastard or worse wound him, I am liable."

IF true, you are in the wrong state. Even MY state, a hotbed of leftist drivel and pathological gun hatred, authorizes the use of deadly force in the home AND bans civil suits based on such lawful home defense. Check your statutes! ;)
 
Maybe we ought to just pay the jurors more than $10/day, so they won't be so bloodthirsty for someone to bleed at the end.

On the other hand, asking a pharma for 10k for damages due to witholding negative reports on a drug won't make for safer drugs if they know that's the penalty.

If you want reform, how about fixing it so that Cujo the serial rapist doesn't get the same time that Jimmy the college stoner gets. Potheads are for laughing at, not turning into killers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top