Sorry, can’t let this go. Your ignorance is showing a bit too clearly o this one.
The prosecution in this case showed quite clearly that McDonalds knowingly and Deliberately served coffee that was dangeriously hot. Do your homework. This case was decided correctly. It was demonstrated in court that McDonalds knew that they were harming people, they just didn’t care. [url=http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm]cite**
Not to destroy your whole argument, but since McDonalds knew that the were hurting people, and didn’t stop. Doesn’t that destroy your whole argument?
Nonsense. There is a rider that is for that purpose. But there’s a different rider that is the subject of this thread. This other sider specifically gives Eli Lilly immunity for prior bad acts relating to these childhood vaccines.
Now it’s quite possible that these vaccines are unrelated to Autism. But under no circumstances should they be given immunity before facts are known. It seems to me to be pretty unlikely that they would lobby for immunity if they didn’t expect ot need it, which means that there are facts that they are aware of that tend to implicate them.
Is it true that the bill gives them immunity? I heard Senator Frist say on TV that the bill did NOT give them immunity. Rather, it specifies that the claims would have to go to a certain panel before any suit could be filed. However, I thought he was clear that lawsuits would not be barred.
BTW since a vaccine maker gives immunity, should they not also get immunity?
Well, it’s not immunity. It’s a measure of protection.
Anyway I was not aware that there were two seperate riders. I thought there was just one. You have cleared that up for me, and now I understand the controversy surrounding this.
On it’s face the rider only requires that the first claim go to a special panel. But in practice, it’s immunity, because the rules of the panel provide for a 3 year statute of limitations.
Needless to say, if there is a connection, it was more than 3 years ago.
I’m no C-span wonk, but isn’t the practice of attaching riders to big bills and budgets fairly standard operating procedure in the down and dirty of getting your pet issue passed/funded in our hallowed halls?
I thought that was why Presidents have always wanted “line item vetos.” Am I wrong about this?
It seems like criticism of that practice is a seperate issue than whether or not the rider is a good idea or not.
Haven’t we talked about this already? As my attorney reminded me recently, not only did that woman suffer unusually severe burns, there was a competition going in the town in which it happened concerning who could serve the hottest coffee, and the McD’s was some ridiculous temperature.
