And sometimes juries are going to impose unreasonable verdicts on corporations. That’s life, too.
Republicans consistently and instinctively resist change. When they start talking about “reform”, watch yer ass! They’re up to something.
uhhh… except when the incident shouldn’t even make it to trial in the first place. As the previous examples demonstrated.
Not to mention that the lawyers and judges do help determine the awards, as they instruct the juries as to how they’re supposed to be calculated.
You’re kidding, right? Right now, rightists are the only ones even remotely for change. We’re only not for change if, for no reason, you very loosely compare things to the 1920s and 30s. But I don’t know why you’d do that. Even then, you’d have to make outrageous conflations that ignore the current context of various policies. The federal government wants to impose its will on the pot issue, whereas leave-it-up-to-the-states people only have a home in the GOP, and the dems WORSHIP centralized power (Scalia’s dissent was “surprising” only if you’re a fucking idiot). Social security is doomed to bankruptcy, and is harmful to the young, yet only the GOP wants to reform it.
Across the board, the dems are for the status quo, and increasing highly centralized power. They suck the cock of power. They’re the “some people want to be abused” in the song. The cows, the sheep, what have you.
The public unions are sucking money out of the taxpayer, and the entire concept is inherently unfair, yet the left backs them. Public schools are failing, yet the left backs doing the same, only harder. Marriage laws are in shambles, yet neutral, all-around marriage reform only has a seat with republicans.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that there is always a way of making sure that not a single company ever gets fucked over.
Unanimity is a higher standard than used for climate science. Free trade being a good thing is clearly a strong consensus among economists. It’s just about the poster child for economists agreeing.
Yeah, that’s what I said. Wow, so clever of you. But I also said the arrow is massively in the other direction right now. All your doing is repeating what has been said.
We need tort reform. That’s all there is to it, brah
“Brah?” Well I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m convinced.
I *think *I know what you are saying here, but am holding on to the hope that I am mistaken.
what? I’m not talking about gay marriage. Anyone with a brain knows that gay marriage in particular is a farce of an issue. The real issue is the marriage laws suck, and it’s impossible to get really married. You know, like, with AN OBLIGATION. You know, like how marriage is supposed to be?
Suggest that maybe marriage should have some actual obligations, and the leftists scream and holler that you’re 50’s misogynist tyrant who wants all women in the kitchen, and something about rape and abortion too.
Ah! That must be why Republicans never commit adultery. Explains a lot, and also, reassuring. Ted Cruz has the look of a second rate lounge singer and Loathario. Glad to hear otherwise.
Oh JEEZ! Come ON! Are you kidding me? Do you really expectthat argument to fly? Real marriage reform, which would be an actual serious change that is seriously outside the mainstream, only has a seat in the GOP, and you know it. Like I said, suggest it and the feminist banshees come hollering out about oppression of women and 50’s housewives and abortion and whatever.
If not about rape and abortion, what obligations do you think marriage should include, how would you enforce them, and what Republicans are trying to enact them?
Given that your posts to date have been an exercise in sophistry of the poorest sort with little to no backing other than vague claims about how the tort system is rigged and we are all going bankrupt, I am hurt. No, truly, I am.
The basic claim is that You (the general you, not you specifically) have caused harm to Me, either through action or inaction. You are somehow claiming that restitution on your part is not only bad policy, but that it is somehow morally unjust. And you hide behind a lot of conspiracy theory and ‘hard truth-telling.’
When people do not see sufficient redress in the mechanisms of government, they turn to other means. If you feel it necessary to rig the courts such that the average person cannot see any hope of restitution for a meritorious claim, you have opened up the real possibility that they will seek redress through murder and pillage…and honestly, I don’t see that as an unjust result under the system you propose.
This thread started out with low expectations–it looked like it was just one more partisan slug-fest, but I figured that it was worth attempting.
Now that it has moved from partisan slug-fest to personal slug-fest, I am sending it to its proper home.
What kind of world do you live in? If a business is inviting me to use a piece of their equipment, I do fucking well expect that they inspect that equipment regularly to ensure it is safe to use.
When every single customer of your business sits in chairs to consult with the lawyer, you have two responsibilities:
Step 1, buy quality chairs that are appropriate for business use.
Step 2, keep those chairs in good repair.
The alternative is that each customer is responsible for performing a chair inspection before sitting down. Is that the tort reform you’re looking for? Caveat Sessor?
That’s fucking idiotic. Your business, your equipment, your responsibility to ensure it is safe for your customers to use, in the manner in which it is intended to be used.
EdwinAmi, when you speak of marriage reform what are you talking about? Reading between the lines, it sounds as if you could be advocating for eliminating divorce.
Wow, you are insane.
What reform would have prevented this, specifically?
:dubious: So? You are not, I hope, seriously thinking of replacing the American rule with the English rule.