Bush protects large business with new legislation!

[RZAL]

The states just lost another chunk of their sovereignty and even more so the people will be at the mercy of the Federal Government. Why don’t they just abolish the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution? I’m with the Democrats on this one.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress on Thursday passed legislation that would transfer most large, multistate class action lawsuits to federal court, fulfilling one of President Bush's second-term goals. The aim of the bill was to protect businesses and stop lawyers from reaping huge profits by filing suits in carefully selected state courts.

The legislation, given final congressional approval by the House on a 279-149 vote, would ban state courts from hearing large multistate class action lawsuits. Such courts have been known for issuing multimillion-dollar verdicts like they did against tobacco companies…….

Bush and other Republicans have been pushing for changes in the legal system for years. They argue that greedy lawyers have taken advantage of the state class action lawsuit system by filing frivolous lawsuits in certain state courts where they know they can win big dollar verdicts. Meanwhile, those lawyers' clients get only small sums or coupons giving them discounts for the products of the company they just sued, lawmakers said.

Democrats argued that the main goal of Republicans was to hurt trial lawyers who donate heavily to the Democratic Party and to help big business escape multimillion-dollar verdicts from state courts. "This bill is the Vioxx protection bill, it is the Wal-Mart protection bill, it is the Tyco protection bill and it is the Enron protection bill," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Washington.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/17/limiting.lawsuits.ap/index.html

 

[Gray Fox]

It's gods fault, he is the one who made em president right

 

[Bodacious]

I like how Bush is given the blame when this bill was approved by the house and the senate. Where is the blame for congress?

 

[No Limit]

I like how Bush is given the blame when this bill was approved by the house and the senate. Where is the blame for congress?

It was approved by Republicans, not the house and senate. Therefore Bush gets the blame as he should.

 

[KoreBolteR]

It was approved by Republicans, not the house and senate. Therefore Bush gets the blame as he should.

Being a president is kinda bad, whatever decision you make, there are people who strongly disagree with them, therefore.. more hatred..

but yes, bush made the decision. :dozey:

 

[RZAL]

I like how Bush is given the blame when this bill was approved by the house and the senate. Where is the blame for congress?

I normally support Bush and yes congress is just as-if not more guilty than him.

Bush and other Republicans have been pushing for changes in the legal system for years. They argue that greedy lawyers have taken advantage of the state class action lawsuit system by filing frivolous lawsuits in certain state courts where they know they can win big dollar verdicts. Meanwhile, those lawyers' clients get only small sums or coupons giving them discounts for the products of the company they just sued, lawmakers said.

 

[DreamThrall]

Congress passed it, Bush didn't veto it... unless I'm misunderstanding the process here...

Either way, I'm sure there are ways for the president to "suggest" things he wants put into law with a Republican majority.

 

[No Limit]

I normally support Bush and yes congress is just as-if not more guilty than him.

Congress is, but you have to understand who controlls the house and congress; the Republicans do. So anything Bush wants passed he will. Bush was the one to suggest this bill and he was the one to make it part of congress's agenda.

So if you really want to get technical then fine, it's not Bush's fault; it's the republican's fault. Happy now?

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, when this bill passed the senate, 17 democrats voted for it, so it is unfair to say only republicans want this. However, no republicans voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009

For the house side 50 democrats voted for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=38


Oh, yah, in the senate Barak Obama voted for it.

 

[RZAL]

Ok, when this bill passed the senate, 17 democrats voted for it, so it is unfair to say only republicans want this. However, no republicans voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009

For the house side 50 democrats voted for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=38


Oh, yah, in the senate Barak Obama voted for it.

Excellent links…Its just a big let down, not only for me, but also the states and the people.

Its a good example of the federal government slowly chipping away the rights of the states and the rights of the people.

 

[No Limit]

Excellent links…Its just a big let down, not only for me, but also the states and the people.

But again, keep in mind this was passed only because of Republicans. Sure, a few Democrats voted for this but this was clearly as Republican bill.

 

[jondy]

Because if anyone needs protecting right about now, it's multimillion dollar corporations; those poor, poor bastards.

 

[RZAL]

But again, keep in mind this was passed only because of Republicans. Sure, a few Democrats voted for this but this was clearly as Republican bill.

That’s why I’m with the Democrats on this one. Now having said that, the Democrats have been plenty guilty of chipping away the rights of the people and state. I don’t see a change in my political affiliation, just because they went against the republicans and Bush on this bill.

It’s more likely the Democrats who opposed this bill did so because it was pushed by the republicans, rather than because of its jurisprudence. It doesn’t matter to me, what matters is they voted against it.

Its a good example of the federal government slowly chipping away the rights of the states and the rights of the People.

 

[No Limit]

It’s more likely the Democrats who opposed this bill did so because it was pushed by the republicans, rather than because of its jurisprudence. It doesn’t matter to me, what matters is they voted against it.

It seems these days everything is based on partisan politics. This really isn't the case; the media simply makes it seem that way. There are still many bills out there that get bipartisan support while others don't.

In this case the Democrats voted against it simply because this is against their ideology. The Democrats have always been for individual protection over corporation protection; while Republicans are the direct oppisite. It is easy to claim they voted against it simply because Democrats voted for it; however, this is not the case.

 

[RZAL]

It seems these days everything is based on partisan politics. This really isn't the case; the media simply makes it seem that way. There are still many bills out there that get bipartisan support while others don't.

In this case the Democrats voted against it simply because this is against their ideology. The Democrats have always been for individual protection over corporation protection; while Republicans are the direct opposite. It is easy to claim they voted against it simply because Democrats voted for it; however, this is not the case.

“individual protection over corporation protection” Just like they prevented the US coal and steel industries from leaving the United States, or just like Clinton’s NAFTA prevented the textile industries and various jobs from going south of the border. Oh I think not, seems as if the majority of both parties are more concerned with their own profit margin (your tax money) and paying lip service to the American public than protecting and creating American jobs.

Well… I’m off topic now and besides I’m bashing the Republicans and Bush for this so called “Class Action Fairness Act of 2005”

a good example of the federal government slowly chipping away the rights of the states and the rights of the People.

 

[No Limit]

“individual protection over corporation protection” Just like they prevented the US coal and steel industries from leaving the United States, or just like Clinton’s NAFTA prevented the textile industries and various jobs from going south of the border. Oh I think not, seems as if the majority of both parties are more concerned with their own profit margin (your tax money) and paying lip service to the American public than protecting and creating American jobs.

Well… I’m off topic now and besides I’m bashing the Republicans and Bush for this so called “Class Action Fairness Act of 2005”

We can go in to that but that would be too off topic for this. Decmorats are far more for protecting individuals over corporations than the Republicans; I don't think you could nor do you want to argue against that. However, I do agree with you that Clinton's free trade policies weren't that great and it is one of my largest problems with him. The steel and coal problems I would be happy to get in to but not in this thread.

 

[RZAL]

We can go in to that but that would be too off topic for this. Decmorats are far more for protecting individuals over corporations than the Republicans; I don't think you could nor do you want to argue against that. However, I do agree with you that Clinton's free trade policies weren't that great and it is one of my largest problems with him. The steel and coal problems I would be happy to get in to but not in this thread.

What the hey, I'm bashin Bush today. So give me your take on the coal issue, if not in this thread post it on a new one. I'll try to stay neutral.

"Decmorats are far more for protecting individuals over corporations than the Republicans" that would make a good debate.....

 

[No Limit]

What the hey, I'm bashin Bush today. So give me your take on the coal issue, if not in this thread post it on a new one. I'll try to stay neutral.

"Decmorats are far more for protecting individuals over corporations than the Republicans" that would make a good debate.....

Feel free to post a source for the part you want to debate about and I'll be happy to get into it.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

In the words of everyone in that South Park episode where Timmy and Jimmy join the Crips, "I'm stayin' out of this one."

 

[SidewinderX]

Actually guys... I'm pretty liberal, but I don't mind this bill.

The only people who usually benefit from a class action lawsuit are lawyers. The people involved *rarely* benifit substanially.

An example?

A year ago there was a lawsuit against recording industries overcharging for records in Virginia. The recording industry lost the lawsuit, and me, part of that class, was awarded 13 dollars. just 13 dollars.

However, The lawyers involved in the case got near 1 million dollars (or therabouts) for the case.

Class Action lawsuits have thier place, and the important ones will still be heard.

 

[No Limit]

Actually guys... I'm pretty liberal, but I don't mind this bill.

The only people who usually benefit from a class action lawsuit are lawyers. The people involved *rarely* benifit substanially.

An example?

A year ago there was a lawsuit against recording industries overcharging for records in Virginia. The recording industry lost the lawsuit, and me, part of that class, was awarded 13 dollars. just 13 dollars.

However, The lawyers involved in the case got near 1 million dollars (or therabouts) for the case.

Class Action lawsuits have thier place, and the important ones will still be heard.

I agree with you; people get screwed out of their money in this case. The problem is that this bill won't do anything to change that; it simply makes it harder for corporations to be held responsible.

So with this law you would still only get $13; however, it would be much harder for the law suit to take place helping only the corporation.

 

[Bodacious]

Actually guys... I'm pretty liberal, but I don't mind this bill.

The only people who usually benefit from a class action lawsuit are lawyers. The people involved *rarely* benifit substanially.

An example?

A year ago there was a lawsuit against recording industries overcharging for records in Virginia. The recording industry lost the lawsuit, and me, part of that class, was awarded 13 dollars. just 13 dollars.

However, The lawyers involved in the case got near 1 million dollars (or therabouts) for the case.

Class Action lawsuits have thier place, and the important ones will still be heard.

Almost the same thing happned to me. I got a $2 off coupon for a hotel stay because when I stayed at a hotel on a vegas trip they charged a nickel more than they were supposed to on the phone bill. Somehting like that. $2 big whoop.

 

[Grim Beeer]

I think the point is being missed here. While you don't get awarded much with class action lawsuits, it’s not like they require that much direct participation. Most of the time just filling out some form is good enough, rather than taking days and weeks out of your life in some uncomfortable courtroom. These lawsuits are a form of monetary reprisal, and while the per person compensation is usually low, the overall total can reach staggering heights - given that the courts have the power to make accurate judgments in such claims. The idea behind class action lawsuits is essentially democratic and any law abridging such rights I can't agree with. How else would you propose that the people acquire retribution in such issues? This bill is nothing but a boon to big business, clogging the judicial system in their favor, all the while cloaked, as usual, in some do good malarkey (evil attorneys, oh no!).