# Tort Reform and Federalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746 "2011-01-07T14:28:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/1 "2011-01-07T14:28:51Z")
How is the Republicans’ idea of having the federal government pass tort reform consistent with their views on federalism? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/2 "2011-01-07T14:32:12Z")
Since when is the GOP proposing **federal** tort-reform legislation? Serious question, first I’ve heard of it and I’m a PI lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/3 "2011-01-07T14:55:14Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > How is the Republicans’ idea of having the federal government pass tort reform consistent with their views on federalism? How is it not? I assume you’re talking about proposals to limit punitive damages in medical malpractice claims. ---
**Author:** ![Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pierrot_Le_Fou)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/4 "2011-01-07T15:07:25Z")
Jg > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Since when is the GOP proposing **federal** tort-reform legislation? Serious question, first I’ve heard of it and I’m a PI lawyer. It is a big part of their health care reform proposals. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/5 "2011-01-07T15:27:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How is it not? > > I assume you’re talking about proposals to limit punitive damages in medical malpractice claims. Ah. In that case, it would be consistent with their views on federalism in exactly the same way as their positions on gay marriage or legalizing pot – i.e., in exactly the same way as the hooker who gobbles your knob in an alley is in love with you. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/6 "2011-01-07T17:09:40Z")
> [@Pierrot\_Le\_Fou](#): > > Jg > > It is a big part of their health care reform proposals. And so is forcing states to allow insurance companies to offer policies without any regulation by the elected representatives of people who live in that state. So fuck you Maine, we’ll let fly-by-night companies in the Bible belt set up the medical equivalent of Amway and sell it in your state, ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/7 "2011-01-07T17:16:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Ah. In that case, it would be consistent with their views on federalism in exactly the same way as their positions on gay marriage or legalizing pot – i.e., in exactly the same way as the hooker who gobbles your knob in an alley is in love with you. Maybe I’ll rephrase the question. What are Republicans’ views on federalism? Once you have established that, then perhaps you can establish why their proposals on medical malpractice, legalizing pot, or knob gobbling is inconsistent with that. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it just seems like a really lazy debate to say in 19 words, “Aren’t Republicans hypocrites? Discuss.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/8 "2011-01-07T17:43:26Z")
Tort reform involves the Constitution-presently, the Constitution allows one to sue for damages, if the value of the loss/damages exceeds $20.00. What isn’t clear to me: juries are allowed to award damages for “pain and suffering”-how amounts to compensate for this are arrived at, is a mystery to me. For example-we have a woman in Los Angeles who is suing an athletic shoe mfg. (New Balance), because she was somehow “damaged” (she claims that wearing the shoes didn’t help “tone” her body)-her lawyer is asking for $5 million-seems like a lot of “dmage” to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/9 "2011-01-07T18:15:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Maybe I’ll rephrase the question. What are Republicans’ views on federalism? No consistent ones, actually, at least, not over the lifespan of the party, which started with Lincoln. (For that matter, the Democratic Party goes back to the extreme decentralist Jefferson.) But ever since FDR and the New Deal, the federal government has been their _bete noir_ and they’re all about local autonomy and “constitutionalism”. The federal government’s half-assed, late-to-the-party role in the Civil Rights revolution only exacerbated this and drove millions of conservative white Southern Dems into the GOP, which they more or less took over. Their semiofficial half-articulated view, now, seems to be that the federal government should be the Defense Department and the Postal Service and not much more. Some even demonize the semi-governmental Federal Reserve system, though for other reasons in addition to its nationally-centralized character. The Tea Partiers are even more extreme. Half the planks in the [“Contract From America”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_party_movement#.22Contract_from_America.22) seem to be starve-the-beast. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/10 "2011-01-07T18:27:44Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Tort reform involves the Constitution-presently, the Constitution allows one to sue for damages, if the value of the loss/damages exceeds $20.00. > What isn’t clear to me: juries are allowed to award damages for “pain and suffering”-how amounts to compensate for this are arrived at, is a mystery to me. > For example-we have a woman in Los Angeles who is suing an athletic shoe mfg. (New Balance), because she was somehow “damaged” (she claims that wearing the shoes didn’t help “tone” her body)-her lawyer is asking for $5 million-seems like a lot of “dmage” to me. The [Seventh Amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) applies only to civil suits in federal courts – unlike most elements of the BOR, it has never been interpreted to apply to the states. If it were repealed that would go only to the right of trial by jury; the right to sue would remain. You **can** sue for damages in **any** state, but it was that way long before the Revolution; all part of the common-law system. Pain-and-suffering damages, like almost everything else relevant to a personal-injury suit, are rooted in Anglo-American common law with statutory modifications, and not a constitutional issue. Such a claim is by its nature worth whatever the jury thinks it is worth, and may be subject to remittitur (reduction) by a judge who thinks it excessive, and there may be a statutory cap on the amount depending on the state. They should not be confused with punitive damages, nor with damages in the particular tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/11 "2011-01-07T18:42:19Z")
The judge can set aside a punitive damage award too, no? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/12 "2011-01-08T05:40:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The judge can set aside a punitive damage award too, no? Or reduce it if deemed excessive. (If he allowed a punitive-damages option to be included in the jury instructions and verdict form, he’s not likely to set it aside entirely.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/13 "2011-01-08T19:55:28Z")
True. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/14 "2011-01-08T20:19:50Z")
“Federalism” is the current preferred term replacing "states’ rights’, which was the preferred term replacing “segregation”, which was the manifestation of “white supremacy” that previously was manifested by slavery. There’s nothing more to it really than a resentment against people who have learned and grown faster than they did. Federalism _as such_ isn’t a core belief of the Republicans at all, so there’s no moral or intellectual conflict to overcome. It’s all about keeping resentments stirred up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tort-reform-and-federalism/566746/15 "2011-01-08T22:41:46Z")
Curiously, in the early years of the Republic, [Federalist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_party) meant the opposite of what it does now.