That is great. ROTFLMAO.
Posted on 09/19/2007 3:11:52 PM PDT by goldstategop
Especially in a global economy. Back when our economy was 90% internal the cost of liability insurance and legal costs was built into the product price. So some things might cost 2% more.. others like health care 100% more because of our legal system.
Nowadays it simply means a company makes the product or service somewhere else and sells it in. Rather then step into a legal minefield.. and as I think about it the civil legal system is designed to protect property rights and enforce contracts. But if your property is at risk because of a legal system, that is more anarchism.
If that is not enough for you, consider that Thompson himself hasn't always had Federalism as a defense in running interference for his fellow lawyers. From a Ramesh Ponnuru piece:
In 1998, as the Senate debated a massive anti-tobacco bill, an amendment was offered to cap the fees of the anti-tobacco lawyers. In many cases, these lawyers had been asked to represent state governments by attorneys general to whose campaigns they had been contributed. In some cases, they then sued the tobacco companies under new laws that had been written to ensure that they would win. They charged as much as $92,000 an hour. They then agreed to dump the whole thing in Congress’s lap—but, of course, insisted that the only thing that wouldn’t be up for grabs was their fees. As libertarian legal writer Walter Olson said at the time, a fee cap would have been “more like a cap on ransom payments to an airline hijacker than . . . like an interference with a regular market transaction.”
But Thompson sided with the trial lawyers, joining such other unlikely defenders of the sanctity of “free markets” and “private contracts” as Richard Cohen.
Ponnuru makes some other good points that suggest FDT isn't solely opposed to tort reform on Federalism grounds. See here.
Uh... maybe if the school is in Germany or South Korea... not South Carolina.
As an added benefit, the Swimmer would probably have a coronary right there with the cameras rolling!
I know you were addressing more than just me, but I implied that there was authority to reform the federal system. My problem is that in order to do what many want to do, we would have to swallow whole the Commerce Clause Socialism that has led to so many of our problems. Med mal is not generally a federal court matter. When it is, it is mostly applying state law.
John Marshall’s comment is well taken, and the power to tax is in the Constitution. To show you how far gone we are, it took an Amendment to get an income tax. It’s sort of quaint that they thought they needed it back then. The power to regulate litigation at the state level is not in the Constitution. I don’t give a crap if Thompson came to this position yesterday. He is still correct.
Maybe so, but you’d sure get a lot of moral support from us non-lawyers!
False. The entire existance of the Federal government is premised on the idea of dividing powers between the state and federal government. Are you suggesting there is no limit on state level litigation? Are you suggesting that the Commerce Clause has as much weight as the left thinks the 2nd Amendment has? The Constitution doesn't just limit the Federal Government's powers, it enumerates the Federal Government's powers at the expense of the state's power's.
Yet another example why the Right Brothers song ‘I’m in love with Ann Coulter’ is one of my faves.
We can live in a world without lawyers. Could we survive in a world without doctors?
That is great. ROTFLMAO.
How is a doctor cutting on a patient or delivering a baby engaged in interstate commerce? I’m not suggesting the Commerce Clause is without weight, I’m suggesting that it isn’t the blank check you want it to be. There is power in the Commerce Clause to regulate these state-law cases. Where is the commerce involved, and how is it interstate?
The only way we get to where you are on this issue is by swallowing whole the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause that began in the New Deal. By this line of jurisprudence, there is NO limit on federal power at all, because everything touches interstate commerce. The amount of toilet paper you use is subject to federal regulation, because it has an impact on interstate commerce. That is not the natural meaning of the clause, nor is it what was intended by the Framers. That is not conservatism, nor is it faithful to our Constitutional system.
“My uncle who was an anesthesiologist (sp) paid $100,000 annually for malpractice insurance 25 years ago. I don’t know if that was average at the time because he was in a burn center and his patience were high risk and were put under more than often than “normal.”
According to the most recent survey I saw, anesthesiologists make $380,000 to $650,000 per year (depending on the type) AFTER expenses. I could live on it.
“$200,000 is a great salary — until you realize that $100,000 goes to pay the malpractice insurance. (Much higher if you actually deliver babies instead of, say, abort them.)”
Surveys I’ve seen this is the salary AFTER expenses. And of course the salary is MUCH higher for a large number of specialties.
I do believe most doctors deserve every penny.
The problem - the dispute that is relevant - is that Thompson goes to the trial lawyers on tort issues where Federalism is not a defense.
I agree that Thompson has an affinity for the trial lawyers. He has consumed the Kool Aid that makes him think they serve all sorts of good purposes. His background is a problem.
As to auto manufacturers and the like, I still have a problem with the “lawsuit as commerce” aspect of this. Lawsuits are pretty much the opposite of commerce. I am all for the feds bringing some sanity to tort litigation, within the federal system. Should complying with federal regulations be at least some kind of defense against negligence? Sure. I guess that is why plaintiffs want the dumbest people possible on the jury. Washington is only one field of battle in this particular war. States that get a grip on the damage awards and fees will benefit.
Getting back to Ann Coulter, my top reform would be something she would really like. It has to do with getting a certain, overly emotional, element of society off of juries. Okay, okay, over the top. How about loser pays.
The Constitution is a governing document, not a suicide pact.
Right. We agree. Fred does not.
LOLOL!!
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.