Replies

Why not post Ramesh's response to Fred's response? This story is far from over at the point Maggie leaves it.

In my article about Fred Thompson’s record on tort reform on federalism, I noted that he had, contrary to some news reports, supported many instances of it. I suggested that on one issue where many conservatives had differed with him — federal legislation on medical malpractice — Thompson was right and most conservatives were wrong. My remaining concerns about his record, Thompson reasonably says, “hardly constitute[] the stuff of a major dispute.” Yet my 712-word article has nevertheless occasioned a 1,120-word response from the former senator.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjliNjY2YTFjMjY4NmRmOGQ5OTVjMjE2ZWM2NTYzMzg=

I think Ramesh misses the point once again.

Fred said:

For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker ...

The state attorney generals, and the state governments which are explicitly tasked with overseeing their actions are competent to negotiate attorney fees with a private attorney. If oversight is needed to prevent campaign contributions to the state attorney general from interfering with him performing his duties, that it the province and the responsibility of the state.

Fred points out that the states are capable of dealing with this problem on their own.

Ramesh reiterates that oversight is needed and that the Federal Government, in it's vast wisdom, must step in and look after the interests of the states because they are apparently incompetent to do so.

Senator Thompson questions my “commitment” to federalist principle. I think it would be more accurate to say that we have different understandings of what federalist principles, and their implications, are.

I believe that the Founders’ design requires the federal government to keep states from interfering with interstate commerce.

So state attorney generals getting together and negotiating attorney fees for a lawsuit in which multiple states are a party is interfering in interstate commerce? That is a heck of a stretch.

So if I decide to share in the cost of flowers for my mother on mothers day with my brother that lives in a different state, does that mean that the federal government should have to approve the price florists can charge for flowers on mother's day?

I think my brother and I are quite capable of working out that issue with a florist without the help of the federal government.

I think that the states are quite capable of working out the issue of attorney's fees. Their failure to negotiate what I would consider reasonable fees, and the failure of the state government's to reign in those fees does not mean that they were not capable of doing so. The residents of those states elected their government to represent their interests. The federal government should not interfere.

While the state governments may not do a good job representing the interests of their citizens, I have little faith that the federal government will do better. If the citizens don't like how their state government is handling such issues, the citizens can vote in different representatives.

Fred should be questioning Ramesh's commitment to federalism. It doesn't appear that Ramesh has any commitment to federalism and tries to redefine it as an all knowing federal government preventing the states from screwing up.

I only remember reading a few articles by Ramesh, and in none of them did he impress me as being politically conservative.