Why did Obama side with Republicans in 2005 and support "tort reform" favoring big corporations?

[Maven]

Obama supporters on this board are now spreading the lie that Hillary Clinton's housing proposal includes "tort reform" measures, which is completely and utterly FALSE. In fact, her proposal would make it harder for investment banks to bring suits in CONTRACT to enforce strict covenants that make it impossible for mortgage administrators to renegotiate with homeowners. In other words, it would help save homes.

But I'm glad the subject was brought up anyway, since it's a topic that should be discussed in light of Obama's support of the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a bill that was written by the "tort reform" lobby, pushed aggressively by Bush/Cheney, and which every Senate Republican voted for--along with Barack Obama. (Clinton voted against it.)

It's a bill that makes it more difficult and expensive for individuals wronged by big business to mount class action lawsuits to seek redress for their injuries.

At the time, Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass) called the bill "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised."

So tell me, Obama supporters: if Obama is such a friend to ordinary citizens, and Clinton is such a corporate shill, why did Obama vote for a Republican bill to deny injured people the right to sue big business?

Anyone?

[GOPNotForMe]

1. Good question and definitely one that our nominee should have to answer.

I definitely do not support so-called tort reform and would like to know why he felt it proper to vote for this bill.

[jgraz]

5. Yep, he's got quite a few questions to answer

Doesn't mean he shouldn't be our nominee. Doesn't mean I won't bust my ass to get him elected. But it does mean we progressives will have to watch his presidency very carefully and make sure our voices are heard.

[papau]

40. Social problems O's staff says he will not pass, NAFTA he won't change, Irag out thats not - GOPer?

[QC]

2. His mentor, Joe Lieberman, told him to? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Why did Clinton side with bush and support the Iraq war which has so far cost 4,000 US soldiers and

tens of thousands of injured soldiers, 1 million Iraqi deaths, 3 trillion dollars and American credibility world wide?

Which is more important?

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Bush's lie about the yellowcake and WMDs maybe?

Bush -- George W. Bush -- remember him? Dubya? The guy who stole the 2000 election from Al Gore (whom the press ccalled a liar and a neo-con)?

--p!

[Maven]

7. This is DU

Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is solely responsible for the deaths of those Americans and Iraqis. Kerry and Edwards aren't, see, because they "apologized" for the making the same vote she did. Only Kerry actually didn't. But he supports Obama, so it's OK.

[Dogmudgeon]

33. I didn't get that memo, Harv ...

I have been trying to work this whole thing out logically.

But the Obama campaign is based on feelings. I'm clearly the one in error.

By the way, I loved your role as Mr. Emmett, the horny principal in http://imdb.com/title/tt0060636/">Lord Love A Duck. It's one of my favorite movies.

:evilgrin:

--p!

[Eric J in MN]

4. Maybe he was trying to demonstrate his bi-partisan qualities.

I prefer Hillary Clinton's vote against that bill.

[jody]

8. BO is a political chameleon, he'll vote for whoever pays the bill. n/t

[KingFlorez]

9. I've wondered about that too

It's a very legitimate question. What as his motivation? It makes no sense.

[thevoiceofreason]

10. Don't know much about the law, do you?

Or, in the alternative, not a very wise lawyer, eh? How's the family law practice going?

[Maven]

11. LOL. My family law practice?

Would you like to talk about the law? By the way, although it's not my particular practice area, I know a few domestic relations lawyers who could probably argue you under the table. Then again, I can't speak for the Texas bar.

[JoFerret]

50. The Texas bar

what a concept.

[merh]

12. You are sorta correct, but you left out some important information

Obama didn't participate in the negotiations to get Democratic support, and he voted for every Democratic attempt to eviscerate the bill with amendments (Vote Record Numbers 5 through 8, February 9, 2005). Obama didn't break with the Democrats on any seriously contested tort reform measures: he filibustered medical malpractice reform, and was one of the votes to kill the asbestos reform bill (which effectively failed by one vote). (I was not a great fan of the flawed asbestos reform bill, either, but Obama's opposition does not seem to have been based on the grounds that the bill did not go far enough to rein in abusive litigation.) Obama claimed to support medical malpractice reform in his Senate campaign (or, at least, made pro-reform swing voters think that he did), but, then, so did Kerry and Edwards in their 2004 presidential campaign.

Obama co-sponsored the MEDiC bill with Hillary Clinton; it was a federally-funded variation of the so-called "Sorry Works" proposal that the plaintiffs' bar has elsewhere proposed as an alternative to medical malpractice reform. ...

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/003354.php

The Amendments

2/10/05 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 12 to S. 5 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
To establish time limits for action by Federal district courts on motions to remand cases that have been removed to Federal court. Amendment Rejected (37-61) Yea

2/09/05 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4 to S. 5 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
To clarify the application of State law in certain class actions, and for other purposes. Amendment Rejected (38-61) Yea

2/09/05 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2 to S. 5 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
To amend the definition of class action in title 28, United States Code, to exclude class actions relating to civil rights or the payment of wages. Amendment Rejected (40-59) Yea

2/09/05 On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 5 to S. 5 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
To exempt class action lawsuits brought by the attorney general of any State from the modified civil procedures required by this Act. Motion to Table Agreed to (60-39) Nay

http://obama.senate.gov/votes/109/index.cfm?start=626

[Maven]

15. Thank you for the additional background.

It militates slightly in his favor but it still doesn't explain why he voted for the bill.

[merh]

18. Guess this should answer your question -

Early in 2003, when a class action reform bill (SB 1158) was introduced in the Illinois Senate, I spoke with then-State Sen. Barack Obama about the bill and what it was intended to do: require that class action suits be filed (and certified, if merited) in appropriate venues. The bill does nothing more.

Obama, (who has gone on to bigger arenas, if you haven't followed his career) said he agreed that class actions had become a problem and that he thought he could support the principles of the bill introduced by Senators Kirk Dillard, Frank Watson, Kay Wojcik and Pate Philip.

He recognized that the proposed legislation did NOT deny anyone the opportunity to file, or be part of, as class action suit. It DID specify that class action suits should be filed in appropriate -- logical might be a better description -- venues.

Obama understood then, and he obviously still understands, that class action suits serve a purpose but the class action process has been abused.

Last week, in one of his first major actions as a United States Senator, Obama voted "aye" on the Class Action Fairness Act when it was called for a vote on the Senate floor.

It should be no surprise that he did. While generally considered to be a fairly liberal Democrat, Obama is not a knee-jerk "automatic" vote for any cause. He will consider the facts, listen to arguments, and come to a decision. In most cases, he probably will not be voting in favor of civil justice reforms because his instincts and his philosophical leanings will tell him to do otherwise.

But no one -- not the trial lawyers, not organized labor, not the Democrats who share the left side of the aisle in the Senate Chamber with him -- can assume they know where Barack Obama will be on every issue. He'll make up his own mind and do what he thinks is best and right.

That is in sharp contrast with Obama's senior Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin. There is no one more firmly in the pockets of the trial lawyers on the Senate floor than Durbin. Now in Democratic leadership, Durbin is in a position to be the primary spokesman for the trial lawyers on the Senate floor and there is no reason to doubt that he will fulfill that role.

Illinois citizens won't always be happy with Barack Obama's positions on issues, and he may never vote for a civil justice reform measure again, but we will know that he made his mind up based on his interpretation of the facts and arguments.

http://www.madisonrecord.com/printer/article.asp?c=144782

And there has been an abuse of the class action process, forum shopping being the worst one that I can think of off the top of my head. No, I take that back - the huge attorney fees bother me too.

[Maven]

21. Although I agree that forum shopping is a problem, the bill does more than that

It was designed to make it easier to defend against class actions by loosening the requirements to remove to federal court. Federal judges are typically more inclined to deny certification of classes and are more likely to dismiss on the merits. Thus, the removal power can be used as a powerful weapon by a corporate defendant to deny plaintiffs recovery.

In addition, CAFA allows public officials to intervene in class action settlements. Not only will this potentially slow down the process of settling actions and obtaining relief for plaintiffs, the wording of the Act is so broad that the power of these intervenors may be entirely left to the discretion of the court. In other words, a federal judge might be able to impose his own political loyalties on a settlement based on the "commentary" of a friendly public official who chooses to intervene.

You have to take the analysis further (and have some knowledge of the legal system) to really understand the full and intended impact of the bill.

[anigbrowl]

25. Hmm

"It was designed to make it easier to defend against class actions by loosening the requirements to remove to federal court. Federal judges are typically more inclined to deny certification of classes and are more likely to dismiss on the merits. Thus, the removal power can be used as a powerful weapon by a corporate defendant."

Judging a case on the merits sounds reasonable enough. Now, of course it's not that simple - firs thtere's the cost of getting a lawyer who can practise in front of the federal bar, and then there's the possibility that a defendant will just try to shut the suit down straight away with a flurry of motions to dismiss. On the other hand, one has to consider that from a defendants point of view, jurisdiction shopping makes it almost impossible to insulate themselves against frivolous lawsuits and these add completely unecessary (and in a few cases, ruinously expensive) costs to legitimate businesses.

I'm not willing to judge either way, since I haven't taken time yet to read the bill and I'd want to spend a day or two getting up to speed on the class-action legal landscape before drawing any firm conclusions on the ramifications of the bill.

Nevertheless, I'm struck by the fact that while you say it's a bad thing, the reasons you offered for this opinion were shallow and summary, describing the effects rather than the mechanical changes, and passing off your opinion as fact. I think if you were really sincere you would have explained why you thought this bill made bringing meritorious class-action lawsuits more expensive, rather than just saying it makes it all much harder for victims.

[Maven]

31. The mechanical changes are many

and are too detailed to describe in full here. The overall thrust of the jurisdictional changes is to ease the removal of class actions to federal court. Generally speaking, federal judges are less likely to certify classes and to hold in favor of plaintiffs in class actions. This is not a rule that is written down anywhere--it's a generality borne out of experience with the federal courts and an understanding of the federal rules that govern those courts, which are more complex and unforgiving when it comes to class actions than many of their state counterparts. Overall, what the bill does is ensure that many class action lawsuits will wind up in unsympathetic fora, increasing the likelihood of denied recovery. This is what the industry backers of the bill clearly understood when they lobbied for it.

By the way, judgment "on the merits" is a legal term of art that is only used to distinguish from a disposition that is procedural in nature. For example: a claim that exceeds the applicable time limitation for filing such claims may be dismissed without ever reaching its "merits." This is an especially important distinction when it comes to class actions, which involve many procedural hurdles to cross before ever getting to the merits, the most important of which is certification of the class--in other words, getting the court to recognize that a certain group of people even has the right to sue together. (Thus, in a class action, the first papers filed by the defendant wouldn't be motions to dismiss, as you'd suggested--they'd be motions to oppose certification). In federal court, the process of certification is often more complex than in state court, and federal judges as I mentioned are generally (though not always) stringent about the rules. Thus, after CAFA, many plaintiffs who find themselves unexpectedly in federal court may never get to argue the merits of their case.

I invite you to read the bill and to get some background on the "legal landscape," although I would warn you that it's a vast area (and probably the most complex sections of civil procedure) to such an extent that an entire subspecialty of litigation practice is now dedicated to it.

[merh]

26. LOL - as if I have no understanding of the system

I dare to try to discuss something with you and answer the question you pose in your OP so that must mean I am uninformed and incapable of understanding what you write. LOL - what a hoot you are.

In your OP you tried to portray the law as something it is not. No one is prevented from filing or participating in class actions. The rules about filing them, where to file them have been changed. Does the law have flaws - yes, it appears it does. But it is not the extreme law you tried to portray it as, now is it.

[Maven]

27. I didn't imply you had no knowledge of the system

But you portrayed the changes as merely mechanical without acknowledging their impact. In fact, the bill will make it easier for corportae defendants to deny plaintiffs recovery.

[4themind]

38. self-del nt

[Maven]

41. But in fact it *would* make it more difficult to bring such lawsuits

because as I explained in a couple of other posts, a class action is a special type of lawsuit which requires a certain "vetting" process (called certification of the class) before you can even get to court. In other words, the court gets to decide whether or not a particular group of plaintiffs even get to sue based upon the way they're organized, whether they share sufficiently common interests, etc. Federal judges--and the federal rules--are generally more prohibitive on this point thus making class actions more difficult to mount in federal court regardless of how much at fault the defendant may be.

[4themind]

42. Yup read the certification part

and self deleted prior to your posted response, but thank you for your explanation. The only thing I could guess is that he had a different interpretation of the effect of the certification process on ferreting out "abuses" which may be detrimental to both business and court resources, vs. the risk of also ferreting out relatively more "valid" claims. I really don't have a metric to base this on, just a possible guess, based upon the post earlier that seemed to give obama's explanation.

[boppers]

13. Saving the wallets of mortgage administrators is NOT saving homes.

Those bastards deserve to be run out of business for writing bad paper and conning people.

As far as the bill you're talking about, it went through the Senate 72-26, and I'm not feeling too much pity over cries of foul play to prevent forum shopping.

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005

[Maven]

17. No, the proposal has nothing to do with saving the wallets of mortgage administrators

It has to do with allowing administrators to renegotiate with homeowners without legal interference from investment banks. Administrators would have nothing to gain financially except perhaps a savings in legal fees.

[boppers]

20. Hillary's words:

"That’s why I will be proposing legislation when Congress returns to provide mortgage companies with protection against the threat of such lawsuits."

She gives their wallets protection by preventing them from being sued, and ultimately held financially liable, for their scams. Basically, she's providing legal cover for loansharking practices.

[Maven]

23. Uh, no, wrong.

Here are her more complete words:

Right now, many mortgage companies are reluctant to help families restructure their mortgages because they’re afraid of being sued by the investment banks, the private equity firms and others who actually own the mortgage papers. Because remember, all of these mortgages were bundled up in these huge packages and sold around the world. So you can’t just go down to see your mortgage broker or your bank or your other lender to work out a deal because they no longer own the paper. This is the case even though writing down the value of a mortgage is often more profitable than foreclosing - both for mortgage companies and for most of those who own the mortgages.

That’s why I will be proposing legislation when Congress returns to provide mortgage companies with protection against the threat of such lawsuits. I know this kind of policy isn’t particularly glamorous and it probably won’t make headlines. But it will make a critical difference in helping families save their homes and getting our economy back on track.

Her proposal has nothing to do with lawsuits by individuals for wrongdoing, as in predatory lending or fraudulent inducement. It has to do with investment banks that own these mortgages interfering with mortgage administrators who want to renegotiate with troubled homeowners but can't because their hands are tied by restrictive covenants. It's a GOOD thing for people trying to save their homes.

[boppers]

45. It works both ways.

1. Mortgage companies were making bad mortgage investments... predatory lending, mis-representing risk, sudden interest hikes in the fine print, ignoring credit risks.... you name it.
2. Mortgage companies then sold those bad mortgages, and their related risk, to others.
3. Mortgage companies now want legal protection, so they don't get sued by the purchasers, for steps 1 & 2.

Nobody is preventing the Mortgage companies from making good investments, and thus, *not* pissing off (and getting sued by) the people who are buying the mortgages.

Essentially, the mortgage companies are asking for legal protection to continue their existing practices. The "restructure" thing is a smokescreen, because any not-brain-dead investment calculates risk, and acts accordingly. If the mortgage company actually *wanted* to put up a new mortgage, and pay off the existing one at expected investment return, that's perfectly possible, and legal for them, and would actually make everybody happy.

However, that's not what they're asking for.

They're asking for a legal shield to protect them from being sued because they were selling bad mortgages, and (with a flair of chutzpah) are also trying to make, and profit from, another bad investment off of the same kind of, or even the exact same, homeowners.

[Maven]

47. I'm not defending mortgage banks

or the egregiously irresponsible way they AND the investment banks have behaved.

But it doesn't help homeowners who are losing their homes to say, "Don't worry--they'll make smarter investments next time!"

Your solution is to ask mortgage banks to pay the redemption price (principal and unpaid interest--remember, the mortgages are securitized) on the existing bonds, out of their own pockets, and then do what--provide new loans to the homeowners at better rates and take a loss on the interest they already paid? Not gonna happen. Meanwhile, homes are foreclosed upon.

Like I said, the "legal shield" doesn't save mortgage companies any money, and it doesn't shield them from lawsuits by the homeowners themselves. It just gives them some breathing room to work with mortgagors to avoid foreclosure. A pyrrhic victory is too costly when people's homes are on the line.

[boppers]

49. I suppose the important question is "who assumes the risk, and was it known".

I don't think the answer is "new loans to the homeowners at better rates", especially if the risk is the same, or even worse. The whole problem was that the homeowner rates apparently should have been much worse, but wasn't, because risk was being sold off, and thus, not considered as closely.

(Side note: Didn't bush tout "new home ownership" as one of his achievements?)

Right now, there's finger pointing by mortgage companies, claiming that they shouldn't be held legally responsible for the risk that they sold, and investment banks (and others) claiming they were sold something that was represented as being something other than what it was.

An alternate solution is to assume the risk belongs to those who bought the notes... but then we're just tanking a different sector of the economy (which may then sue the mortgage companies to recover losses).

What do you think of an alternate path, where investors could still sue mortgage bundlers, and mortgage bundlers were required (by law) to have greater transparency on risk factors in their bundles?

[QC]

14. He wants to bring about unity!

Unity between the corporate elite and all the money in the world.

[Tatiana]

16. Fair point of contention.

Hillary voted the correct way. Obama didn't. Like other proposed legislation that would reduce the ability to bring lawsuits, there were some valid issues addressed by the legislation, but overall, it deserved a thumbs down.

You are absolutely correct in pointing this out.

[merh]

19. I disagree

It did not limit the filing of lawsuits, it provided that they be filed in the appropriate venues. It tried to limit forum shopping.

[Tatiana]

22. While true that the feds don't get jurisdiction if 2/3 of the class action plaintiffs

and defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, I still think it curtailed valid lawsuits. Valid lawsuits (I can think of a few in SC and WV) have been thrown out due to extremely conservative courts (like the 4th and to a certain extent 5th circuit court of appeals).

I guess I should have specified that I meant bringing successful lawsuits.

While not horrendously devastating legislation, it still deserved a NO (as my other Senator, Dick Durbin voted).

[Maven]

24. Indeed.

Federal courts are generally much tougher on class actions and expanding the power of defendants to remove from state court increases the likelihood that classes won't be granted certification or that actions will be dismissed on the merits.

[bhikkhu]

28. So the law is fair, but the courts it directs actions to are not?

[Maven]

35. The law isn't fair or unfair in a vacuum--it's procedural

It's the effect of the law that may ultimately be unfair to many plaintiffs.

[bhikkhu]

37. But can you blame the law for the flaws in execution?

[Maven]

39. It's not about "flaws in execution"

It's about institutional biases and complex rules which many plaintiffs may fail to satisfy even if they have meritorious claims.

In addition, the right of a plaintiff or plaintiffs to choose an appropriate forum to bring suit is generally respected, so much so that courts often list it as a "balancing factor" when evaluating whether or not to remove to a different jurisdiction. While often oversimplified or derided as "forum shopping," the ability to choose a familiar forum is an important privilege especially when you're up against a plaintiff with much deeper pockets and more legal firepower.

Why do you think "tort reform" lobbyists (read: industry) were behind this bill in the first place?

[bhikkhu]

43. This seems to argue the case of individuals, where "class action" is the issue

Not trying to be flippant in the least, or to appear more educated than I am...but forum shopping would seem to be a small issue in a class action lawsuit, and I am prone, as a layman, to think that class action lawsuits dealing with large corporations should be settled through federal courts, rather than state courts, as both litigants and the corporations are likely to be in many states.

Perhaps I am wrong. My only experience is about six different letters I have received about class action lawsuits I may be able to sign onto - various products and companies at various times. Reading fine print, in no case was my part more than $25 or so, and in no case was the legal firm's part less than millions, also reflecting the loss to the business. I have always just thrown away the letters.

So there is my perspective. Uninformed as it is I can imagine it may be similar to Barack's. You can have a system which enriches lawyers and feeds off businesses, and does the majority of the populace no good at all. So a minor improvement in legislative process may a good thing.

[merh]

36. LOL

You picked up on that too.

[merh]

29. And I believe the amendments he voted for were

an effort to correct some of those problems.

Can you point me in the direction of those valid lawsuits that were not certified? I would like to read about those.

I'm not saying the law is without its problems, I'm saying I understand why he voted as he did. After all, wasn't Madison County one of those "jackpot justice" counties?

[Tatiana]

44. The amendments were good. There were definitely reasons to vote for the legislation.

But here's a very real effect that it is going to have related to the current subprime mortgage crisis:

A Group Approach To Coping With The Subprime Mortgage Crisis
The Editor Interviews Joseph L. Buckley , Co-Chair, Litigation Department; Chair, Banking Litigation Practice Group, Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

Editor: Let me ask about how you are involved in this?

Buckley: My own experience has been in representing banks. My clients find themselves in the dual role of plaintiffs and defendants in the current crisis. They are being hit by class action claims based on allegations by groups of home owners that they were misled. At the same time our bank clients are asserting claims against unscrupulous parties that helped put these packages together. Of course, many of the more unscrupulous parties that have caused these troubles are no longer to be found, having filed for bankruptcy or skipped town. It will be difficult to recover against many of the smaller title insurers and mortgage companies, because while they may have insurance, it almost certainly is not enough to cover substantial losses incurred by the banks.

Editor: Are cases being filed in both state and federal courts?

Buckley: So far we have been seeing more of them in the state courts. Securities claims are being filed in the federal courts. As time goes on, we are going to be seeing more RICO claims brought in federal court. Complex multi-party litigation often is brought in state court because it is sometimes difficult to achieve diversity of citizenship, particularly where there are multiple plaintiffs.

In the case of class actions, plaintiffs' counsel strive to keep the litigation in the state courts. We usually try to remove them to the federal courts in order to get the benefit of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Editor: You mentioned class actions. Tell us about the types of class actions that you are seeing.

Buckley: We are seeing class actions by clever plaintiffs' lawyers directed at attacking various aspects of the subprime lending operation, including claims that there was insufficient notice given the consumers about how the loans were priced. Ultimately we don't think that these claims have merit. More of them are being filed and my expectation is that the plaintiffs' lawyers believe that they have the right environment to have the claims given attention by the courts. Class actions are being brought in state courts that would not otherwise survive in a federal court. We have been representing bank clients in such cases, not just in New Jersey but in other states as well. One of my partners, who was co-chairman of the ABA's Committee on Class Action Litigation, has been arguing in courts throughout the country.

http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=March&artYear=2008&EntryNo=8001

Maybe you want to put it in the unintended effects category. I'm not sure. But consumers and ordinary citizens did not ask for this bill to be proposed or passed. I know Madison was getting ridiculous but there were better ways to address the issue than this bill. I know Obama tried to fix it, and that says a lot, but the bottom line is this was, perhaps, a rookie mistake on his part.

[autorank]

30. That's a good questoin. I'll be waiting to see the explanation.

[Barack_America]

34. See post #18.

Lots of good info there.

(not my post, however)

[Barack_America]

32. He was one of 18 Dem Senators to vote "yea"

Sounds like Obama's was a complex decision.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/003354.php

In one of his first votes, Obama voted for the eminently sensible Class Action Fairness Act. This hypothetically annoys the litigation lobby (though they can be expected to support Edwards in 2008) and the cast of usual suspects who opposed the bill; one can also find various members of the lunatic left thoughtlessly buying the litigation lobby hype that this minor procedural reform protecting against abusive forum shopping by the plaintiffs' bar had much larger consequences, and thus expressing outrage against Obama for voting for it. One ill-informed website looks at contributions to Obama from his Harvard Law classmates and Chicago Law students at various defense firms and concocts a conspiracy theory that the defense bar bought him off; one wishes the same skepticism was aimed at anti-reform politicians and plaintiffs' bar contributions.

So Obama may have annoyed the lunatic left with his vote for CAFA. As a reform supporter, I'm far from convinced that this makes him someone willing to cross the plaintiffs' bar. Eighteen other Democrats also voted for CAFA. CAFA would have passed the previous Congress, except for its unfortunate timing arising just as Edwards had been named the vice-presidential nominee; Democrats fell into line and filibustered the bill to avoid having a civil justice reform pass at the same time, which might remind people of Edwards's unsavory means of acquiring his fortune on the backs of pregnant mothers and obstetricians. Obama didn't participate in the negotiations to get Democratic support, and he voted for every Democratic attempt to eviscerate the bill with amendments (Vote Record Numbers 5 through 8, February 9, 2005). Obama didn't break with the Democrats on any seriously contested tort reform measures: he filibustered medical malpractice reform, and was one of the votes to kill the asbestos reform bill (which effectively failed by one vote). (I was not a great fan of the flawed asbestos reform bill, either, but Obama's opposition does not seem to have been based on the grounds that the bill did not go far enough to rein in abusive litigation.) Obama claimed to support medical malpractice reform in his Senate campaign (or, at least, made pro-reform swing voters think that he did), but, then, so did Kerry and Edwards in their 2004 presidential campaign.

[anamandujano]

46. "So Obama may have annoyed the lunatic left with his vote for CAFA"

"lunatic left"

That's pretty good. Obama's apologists get to choose which issues are important to the left and which are not. They call themselves progressives but are malleable with regard his votes.

[Barack_America]

51. I didn't post this for their opinion.

I posted it for the discussion of how he voted on the amendments, etc.

But nevermind that. I'm sure that you didn't even bother to read all that.

[Maven]

48. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank

Not surprising they'd praise his support of this bill.

[Barack_America]

52. Interesting that you had praise for this info when it was posted upthread.

I saw this post after I posted mine. The only thing I did differently was to include the additional paragraph, which you surely read after checking that guy's link, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5259803&mesg_id=5260164
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5259803&mesg_id=5260206

I guess that source is everything for you, right?