Tough times ahead for the unscrupulous bastards?
Posted on 12/16/2010 7:29:56 AM PST by Zakeet
The nation's trial lawyer bar, one corner of corporate America firmly in the Democratic Party base, will soon be addressing a far less sympathetic jury on Capitol Hill.
Republicans poised to take control of the U.S. House and state governments across the country next month are sending clear messages that an overhaul of the nation's tort and liability laws is a top priority, forcing trial lawyers to find ways to preserve a legal system that has allowed lucrative liability and class-action lawsuits to flourish.
The American Association for Justice (AAJ), the powerful lobby formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, is warning its members of tough times ahead.
"Opponents of the tort system have gained more power in the new Congress," AAJ officials wrote in a recent alert to members. "This new clout means all of our issues will be under attack. Denying rights to the innocent victims of medical negligence is certain to be the first order of business when the 112th Congress convenes."
[Snip]
A look at corporate giving patterns reveals the extent of the trial lawyers' ties to the Democratic Party.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the AAJ was by far the top contributor to political campaigns among legal industry interests in the 2009-10 cycle, with 97 percent of its $2.56 million in campaign cash going to Democrats. The AAJ also spent almost $3 million on lobbying in 2010 - more than three times the amount spent by the next biggest legal interest, the American Bar Association.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Tough times ahead for the unscrupulous bastards?
I put this right up there with taking down the dept of indoctination in gubmint schools.
Can you foresee King Barry singing off on such a thing?
Me neither.
Lipstick on a pig.
It ain’t going to happen. The House can pass the law, but the Senate with 40 plus Dems can filibust it. Even if the GOP can get enough Dems to pass it in the Senate, Pres Obama can veto it. There is not enough GOP in the House to over ride the veto. Tort reform will happen if the GOP takes 60 seats in the Senate and own the White House.
Wonder why they didn’t do this when they controlled all three branches of government for six years.
There was tort reform in Texas and they went way too far. There are legimate malpractice suits that never get filed because the most a jury can award is $250,000. No insurance company will settle when that’s all they have to pay. An immigrant doctor damaged my heart. I can’t sue and the guy is still in business.
If you believe in States’ rights and smaller federal government, you will not believe in the nationalization of tort law...which, in essenence, is the nationalization of medical malpractice. AKA, more nationalizaton of our health care system. Republicans like GWB like to preach this is of critical importance but just an example of political hypocracy/expediency and bigger gov’t.
I just want to believe it will be so!!!
As consideration of this proposal begins, Texas needs to gird itself for an invasion of every trial lawyer advocacy group, and millions of dollars in advertising against the idea.
An editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: CLICK HERE
Let's hope the Texas legislature stays strong here. This could be a model for other states.
Since many of the these huge medical judgments have been based on junk science (think John Edwards), why not allow the defendants who paid huge damage awards based on poor science to have the right to file a lawsuit to recover those damages when medical science forms a consensus that the previous medical understanding was wrong? At least, let the defendant seek recovery of the contingent fee portion (35-40%) of the damages from the attorneys. It could be perceived as harsh to seek recovery from individuals who suffered but the contingent-fee attorneys suffered no damage and can protect themselves to some degree with malpractice insurance.
I would like to see this right to seek redress for wrongful damage claims to be made a matter of public policy so that this right cannot be waived in any settlement negotiations. If it is waived, the courts would ignore it as an unenforceable contract provision.
“If you believe in States’ rights and smaller federal government, you will not believe in the nationalization of tort law...which, in essenence, is the nationalization of medical malpractice. AKA, more nationalizaton of our health care system. Republicans like GWB like to preach this is of critical importance but just an example of political hypocracy/expediency and bigger gov’t.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps others who really know this stuff can weigh in here, but aren’t there Federal cases of such abuse of the judiciary that can be defunded by the House?
The ACLU - of Communist origins and proclivities - for instance, getting payments from the Feds in exchange for their “Civil Rights” cases that cause so much damage to the country?
Actually, I agree with you. There should be no damage limitations. “Loser pays” should replace all that. I still think that special courts comprised of medical specialists who work full-time for the court system should judge medical malpractice cases.
Reining in the amoral smegma that are trial lawyers, who enjoy unfettered, top-of-the-food-chain immunity, is of paramount importance, rivaled only by removing activist judges.
These are fundamental pathologies on our formerly free society.
If your old name is "damaged goods", it's because of what you did while you had that name. Crooks change their names all the time, their new assumed name is called an "alias" by law enforcement. Even with the new name, they are still crooks.
Yeah, me too. But I would add Dept. Energy and the EPA.
Right, so we’ll see if the republicans have the spine to override his vetoes. My guess is they’ll not and instead play the political blame game. Neither party is really intent on correcting the problems of the past. None are real leaders either.
You’re not telling the whole story. 250k is the limit on pain and suffering awards. Actual damages are unlimited.
Then why on earth did you agree to let him operate on you (if you had such misgivings about this "immigrant" doctor)?
He was reccommended by my regular doctor. Found out later they were partners. And yes, I’m now prejudiced against doctors from certain cultures and will not go to another one.
You’re wrong. If you die your family can sue. You have to be completely incompacitated in order to get actual damages. If you’re able to work at all you won’t find a lawyer that will take the case because of the $250,000 limit. I spoke to several. One told me he hasn’t filed a malpractice suit since the law was put into effect 6 or 7 years ago.
My point is this guy should have his license revoked for what he did. My new cardiologist, from EL SALVADOR, told me the guy put the stents in wrong and the new doctor had to adjust them. Because of this my heart is permanently damaged. And I should be compensated something for that.
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.