Bush and Tort Reform

[BlueCollar]

Didn't the pResident once file a "...frivolous lawsuit...." himself?

Seems to me I remember reading he filed one in Texas...wish I had a link to put up...


Anyway, it's probably irrelevant since the "...Democratic Party Leadership..." will probably just let it go.

edit for spelling...:-)

[thoughtanarchist]

1. has anyone noticed about tort reform

how conservatives control 2 branches of govt and consider the third branch to be a problem in need of reform?

so much for checks and balances.


:wtf:

[TaleWgnDg]

2. Here you go . . .

http://www.thefirsttwins.com/refs/foxnews20000826.html


edited to add:

"Soon after becoming governor, Bush
declared tort reform an 'emergency
issue' and appointed judges who made
it all but impossible for Texans to
bring class action lawsuits against
polluters." - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
from his book "Crimes Against Nature"

.

[BlueCollar]

3. Bravo !!!!

I knew it was out there. I had it bookmarked on my last computer but it crashed.

Thanks for putting up the link.

What do you think the chances are that the "...Democartic Party..." will do anything with it?

Personally, I think the party should be calling for an independent council to investigate this. Surely we can emulate "whitewater-gate"...spend millions investigating this?

[TaleWgnDg]

5. There are two logical but insidious reasons

There are two logical but insidious reasons why the Republicans want to remove the right to sue from Americans:

1.) Plaintiffs trial attorneys (who bring lawsuits for those who are injured) are one of the largest groups that contribute campaign donations to the Democratic Party; therefore, if the Republicans reduce plaintiffs attorneys income, then the Democratic Party suffers campaign contributions; and

2.) Injured people who sue those corporations who injure them, cost corporations money. The Republican Party is backed by corporations. Thus, the Republican Party does not want corporations sued.

The Democrats should put up a good fight to stop "tort reform" for two reasons:

1.) Same as #1 above re largest campaign contributors to the Democratic Party; and

2.) Because the Democratic Party stands for the "little guy" in America . . . because liberal politics protects the American consumer.

edited to add:

Molly Ivins reveals that Bush took in close to
a million dollars from political action committees
and individuals interested in "tort reform" (e.g.
insulating big business from lawsuits by people
their products have harmed). It's no wonder that
Bush declared tort reform a "legislative emergency"
in 1995. - Molly Ivins in her book entitled, "Shrub:
The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush."

.

[OneTwentyoNine]

4. Cover up city IMO. Suspended license,didn't call the police....

What bullshit,a hit a run,thousands in damage yet they DON'T call the police. Gee,wonder why???????????????????

[TaleWgnDg]

6. The more one learns about GWBush, the more . . .

The more one learns about GWBush, the more . . . one understands the deep and pervasive hypocrisy is the man GWBush.


.

[depakid]

7. The first thing to do is stop calling it "reform"

You're playing right into their hands.

[BlueCollar]

9. so let's rename it

republicans have been spinning for years...tort reform,death tax, etc....we have no response?

[AP]

8. Republicans find success with this issue because one conservative

organizing principle is that if you've made money, you've earned it.

There's not recognition that some people lie, cheat, and committ acts of negligence in order to accumulate more money than they deserve.

Conservatives feel that if you have money -- no matter what you did to get it -- you deserved it.

And if you fight in court for money you think was taken from you, you missed your chance and it's just sour grapes.

Americans defer to accumulated wealth as if it were the new monarch. There's just no questioning about fairness. Conservatives would rather be impoverished by a large corporation than question the logic of the hierarchy in their mind which says if someone is richer (whether a corporation or an individual) then they are morally superior and are entitled to someoone else's wealth.

[TaleWgnDg]

10. Shall we cut to the meat of the matter . . .

Shall we cut to the meat of the matter?

For example, in Americas hospitals "98,000 U.S. patients d(ie) annually" from medical errors. NINETY-EIGHT THOUSAND people are dying each year!! "Comparing it to airline safety records, () hospital patients are at least 1,000 times more likely to die from mistakes than airline passengers." And that's just the deaths . . . what about the tens of thousands who survive and are injured? http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/09/five_years_later_medical_errors_stilla_leading_killer?pg=full
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/12/05/left_behind/

And, GWBush wants to remove their right to sue? This is only hospital medical malpractice . . . and does not include other corporate negligence where injuries and deaths result.

__________________________________________________

Molly Ivins reveals that Bush took in close to
a million dollars from political action committees
and individuals interested in "tort reform" (e.g.
insulating big business from lawsuits by people
their products have harmed). It's no wonder that
Bush declared tort reform a "legislative emergency"
in 1995. - Molly Ivins in her book entitled, "Shrub:
The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush."

"Soon after becoming governor, (GW)Bush declared tort
reform an 'emergency issue' and appointed judges who
made it all but impossible for Texans to bring class
action lawsuits against polluters." - Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr., environmental activist and environmental attorney,
quoting from his book entitled, "Crimes Against Nature."
__________________________________________________


.

[morcatknits]

11. Exactly

I work in the medical malpractice community, and this is exactly the point. There are some frivilous lawsuits, however, we do a pretty good job of filtering them out. You'd be amazed at how many just magicly "go away" after some analysis. Where people are injured, we also have the ability to tell the client that they'll have to get out the checkbook on this one. The system actually works far better than it is given credit for working, although it certainly isn't perfect. Bad things do happen though, and taking away the rights of those people for some recompense, just to pacify Bushco's political buddies, and particularly Halliburton, is wrong. Even in areas where the liability is well established, he has worked to 1) reduce the rights for example of miners, both to sue for black lung, and 2) weaken restrictions on the mining companies. It is a convoluted mess, and it's far more complex than his idiotic, simplistic statements, lately.
morcatknits

[thoughtanarchist]

12. frame: "Tort reform is an attack on our judicial system." -eom