What constitutes "too many frivolous lawsuits"? Please provide specifics. See this type of response shows me that you have no clue what you're talking about. Such laws already exist.
Way ahead of you on the ignore listing, Tom. Seriously, I worry for that guy's mental health at this point. The fact he can be presented with probably upwards fo 3 hours of non-stop racist abuse against one man and turn around to say "What? There was no racist abuse worth mentioning" as well as "we cleaned up after our rally... so there" or hear John McCain talk of how people can "look foreign" and turn around to say "how dare you say McCain displayed racism" or hear a Tea Party leader proudly call Obama "an Indonesian Muslim, turned welfare thug, and racist-in-chief" (see 'Anderson Cooper Destroys...' clip - in which Carville cracks me up ) says it all. There really only three possible ways to explain this type of behaviour: 1. Completely trolling and on a wind-up. 2. Extreme stupidity and denial to the point of mental ill-health. 3. Passive racism in-and-of itself. If anybody else can think of any other explanations, I would be mroe than happy to hear them.
Grosclose's book and article are both jokes. Even the the conservatives and libertarians at the Volokh Conspiracy blogsite have been attacking the methodology behind his "study."
Is Colin Gourley's case a frivolous lawsuit? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-doroshow/medical-malpractice---the_b_475374.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...and-the-tort-reform-con-margaret-carlson.html Yes, I'm sure that's the problem, all these squeaky clean pharmaceutical companies getting sued for no reason. http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-busin...at-allegedly-supressed-witness-testimony/8769
I would argue there is a balance. I am certainly not in favor of removing any sort of legal recourse. I never would argue pharmaceutical companies are "squaky clean". Yet- and I have actually met somebody who won 3 settlements for taking a bad pill as a child despite having zero long term health issues- allowing pharmaceutical (and other) companies to get sued by people who are just hoping to land a settlement simply drives up the prices, and reduces the availability and cost of their drugs. It's certainly not an all or nothing issue. I thank you for actually responding to an issue and trying to have a conversation. Too many on this board- TomW, BI, DrWanker, SlightlyBelowAverageDave- to name a few, apparently are so emopartisan that they cannot hear an opposing viewpoint without an emotional fallout and lashing out at those who disagree with them. You and a few others here appear more reasonable.
First of all, again, I am only in this thread to disprove the simply un-true assertion that Republican rhetoric caused the very sad shooting of the Congresswoman. So far nobody other than BI has argued against me. Seriosuly, where have I gone so egregiously wrong? If you disagree with me at times, okay, but look at the astounding level of personal attacks and general emotional fallout coming form some posters here towards me. I must have missed where you "disproved" the Hoffa thing. Can you point me there?
I'll have to go back and read the last several pages, but government leaders as a whole, and Reps more than Dems, appear to use war/violent rhetoric often.
So did this person file three separate lawsuits or did they get three separate settlements from three companies named in the same lawsuit? What was the drug this person took? You'll have to provide more details if you expect your bit of anecdotal evidence to carry any weight. And regardless, what is your solution to stopping such folks from "landing settlements" of this nature? You've yet to provide any details other than to say plaintiffs should have to pay defendants for filing frivolous cases.....which as I mentioned is something that current laws already allow.
There are already barriers against people "just hoping to land a settlement". Lawyers are expensive, and with appeals (which also take time, ergo, more money), settlements don't just end up in the bank account. Plus, there are industries that prefer litigation over actually providing services (see: health insurance) - their legal arms are big enough to squash any individual into submission. Plus, we have these people called "judges" who can throw cases out as they see fit. The idea of people using lawsuits to live life in the easy lane is pretty much a myth. I've yet to see anyone present a coherent argument that we're suffering from too many frivolous lawsuits.
The same people making those arguments are the same ones making the argument that voter fraud is a huge problem that we should disenfranchise as many people as necessary to solve.
I've made this observation on this here forum before, but coming up with solutions in need of a problem seems to be a favorite pastime for right wingers. And curiously, they seem to want *more* government restrictions on individuals.
It's funny how you can hardly tell who's a troll anymore. A person could be parroting right-wing talking points, Tea Party talking points and be completely serious about it. It's hard to tell.
Haha no white as could be. He was a good guy, but why three settlements? Perhaps somebody can explain why you can continually seek recourse for tort and liability cases, but double jeopardy is illegal in criminal cases? One major problem with tort suits is that it drives up the prices, and makes investing in things like life-saving prescription drugs less likely. Besides the myraid of hoops the FDA puts these companies through, the idea of sinking a lot of money into a product is a lot less likely if you are going to get sued by anybody who so much as sneezes after taking a pill. Now don't get me wrong, I understand a lot of tort suits are needed and as a result of negligence, but for the most part it ends up hurting the people who need the drugs the most- the sick and needy.
Maybe the company screwed up in three different ways? Or there were three defendants who had their share in the screw up? You have a habit of presenting your arguments in vague, unverifiable (and plausibly deniable) ways which makes cynical, meanspirited people conclude that you don't know what you're talking about. Bullshit, says Tom Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, who argues: If only there were people whose jobs were to judge which cases should go to trial and which cases shouldn't. If only! Please elaborate. Present numbers. Show us how you got to "most". Thanks!
Against the same defendant for the same harm? You cannot. Res judicata, law of the case, etc. Your posts continue to demonstrate that you're completely clueless.
It's almost looks like a strategy, at this point. Because you're right--it's an ongoing thing with them. We need a Teabagger corrollary to Poe's Law.
This needs to be here too. Gabrielle Giffords steps down from Congress. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nguu0TkCTd4"]Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Steps Down from Congress - YouTube[/ame]