Corporations Score Big Win

[kmack]

Well, in another tribute to the wonderful lobbyists for big business rights in Washington, President Bush signed a bill to limit the amount of money that can be won in court in lawsuits against large corporations. Protecting the rich by making these suits allowable in Federal court (which awards less money) Bush again reafirms his underlying corporate agenda.

Okay that's harsh, but the underlying fact it true. Bush has signed the bill that will protect the large companies from the (less rich) people suing them.

 

[Bodacious]

There is already a thread on this:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72650

Cogress is in no way responsible?

17 democrats in the senate voted for it. 50 democrats in the House voted for it.

 

[RZAL]

Yep! And I'm still mad..............

 

[clarky003]

well unfortunately I dont think large energy corporations are playing their cards right. Oil isnt going to last much longer with the constant increase in demand over quantity. Its going to be interesting because the US governments movements have now cut the middleman out when it comes to Saudi Arabian Oil, so its much cheaper in the short run.. it will most likely mean production will increase to make it cheaper . so that can add to the repercussions. even if oil as the main energy making fossil fuel has reserves to last us 30 years more. at current. increase in demand will keep decreasing that time, eventually you realise that in around half that time there wont be enough oil or man power to keep energy generation up on such a massive scale and power cuts increase under pressure and diminishing supplies. it reaches a 'threshold' where a substantial amount of lower priority people arnt getting their energy requirements anymore. its all about the ratio balance, it may only take another 100 million to 500 million people in the developed world owning a houshold to tip the scales. Its more fragile than we can imagine. It simply cant go on like this for much longer, "people who dont adapt and change die out"

but ive seen and read some amazing things that dont make it seem as bleak as it sounds.. patents and descriptions of the kind of energy generation where you dont have to rely on any large scale mining operations to obtain it, its more personal. making you less dependant on large corporations that deal with modern energy.. now that would piss them off . And I hope oneday we wont need to rely on corporations for our energy needs. That extra bit of freedom maybe just around the corner

 

[satch919]

There is already a thread on this:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72650

Cogress is in no way responsible?

17 democrats in the senate voted for it. 50 democrats in the House voted for it.

Thats exactly why Democrats don't hold any power now. They can't develop a unified stance. Democrats have just as much invested in big corporations as Republicans. Vote em out!!!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wait a second, tort reform has been needed. It's not stopping people from suing. You will see healthcare costs lowered because of this, since the insurance healthcare providers have to buy will not be as imminent. You will see frivelous lawsuits decline in huge numbers. No more lawsuits because you didn't know microwaving your cat was not an appropriate way to dry it after a bath.

 

[RZAL]

Wait a second, tort reform has been needed. It's not stopping people from suing. You will see healthcare costs lowered because of this, since the insurance healthcare providers have to buy will not be as imminent. You will see frivelous lawsuits decline in huge numbers. No more lawsuits because you didn't know microwaving your cat was not an appropriate way to dry it after a bath.

So you are saying the states can’t govern themselves and their courts can no longer be trustworthy of justice? You will see lawsuits decline in huge numbers, party due to changes in federal law not to mention a shortage of federal attorneys and increased court cost and fees.

So far everyone has been concerned about the cost of big business and lawsuits, not once have I noticed anyone mention sovereignty of the states.

"For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."

"Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built, still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff".

"We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government, because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit". MONTEZUMA Antifederalist No. 9 Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.

 

[kmack]

i hate rich republicans from arizona. Arizona is the biggest, warmest pile of republicans there is.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So you are saying the states can’t govern themselves and their courts can no longer be trustworthy of justice? You will see lawsuits decline in huge numbers, party due to changes in federal law not to mention a shortage of federal attorneys and increased court cost and fees.

So far everyone has been concerned about the cost of big business and lawsuits, not once have I noticed anyone mention sovereignty of the states.

I thought this applied to JUST federal court though, once it reaches that level. I have not read the legislation so please tell me if I'm mistaken, could be parts of it that I really don't like.

As far as I understand it, states can set what they please in court regarding this, when it reaches federal court, this legislation then applies. Correct or not?

i hate rich republicans from arizona. Arizona is the biggest, warmest pile of republicans there is.

This is obviously just a character attack against me. Please take your stereotypes and drivel elsewhere.

 

[RZAL]

I thought this applied to JUST federal court though, once it reaches that level. I have not read the legislation so please tell me if I'm mistaken, could be parts of it that I really don't like.
As far as I understand it, states can set what they please in court regarding this, when it reaches federal court, this legislation then applies. Correct or not?

Not anymore and its just the beginning

Don't Let Class Action "Reform" Deny Justice to Consumers

The latest class action bill (S.5) would deny justice to consumers. The bill would:

§ Federalizes mass torts.
§ Removes truly state class actions to federal court.
§ Clogs the already overburdened federal courts.

This legislation is much broader than class action reform. S.5 applies not only to "class actions" but also to mass torts. Although the bill’s proponents say that the bill only applies to mass actions, the definition of “mass action” clearly shows that they mean mass torts. There is no legitimate reason to overwhelm the federal courts with these state claims.


The legislation still moves state class actions to federal court.

The so-called “compromise” preserves the Feinstein formula, adding only a new, meaningless wrinkle. Under Feinstein, a class action is a state class action if greater than two-thirds of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the case is filed. The “compromise” still requires that a named defendant be a citizen of the state in which the plaintiffs are citizens and the action is filed. This is particularly problematic for small and medium states that are largely not headquarters for big business. Moreover, this in-state defendant must be a defendant from whom "significant" relief – not a defined term – is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a "significant" basis – again, not defined – for the claims asserted by the plaintiffs.


There is no justification for massive preemption of state judiciaries.

The state judiciaries have consistently opposed efforts to "federalize" class actions believing that state courts are perfectly capable of handling their own matters without interference from Congress and the federal judiciary. Rare state court abuses have been appropriately handled by state supreme courts and state legislatures.


Class action "reform" will further clog federal courts.

Federalizing class actions would exponentially delay the judicial process for injured consumers and other class action plaintiffs. Federal courts, already overwhelmed by the large number of criminal drug cases and immigration cases, do not have the resources to handle complex issues of state law. Proponents can't pretend these bills are about coupon settlement abuses. Provisions to address coupon abuses was added by Democrats only after Senator Breaux’s class action bill in the 108th Congress included this language. Indeed, some of the most famous coupon settlements were reached in federal court, not in state court. Anecdotal evidence from a couple of states does not mean that Congress should virtually strip state courts of their jurisdiction over state law claims.


Class action "reform" will deny many plaintiffs their day in court.

It is no secret that federal courts are generally less willing to entertain complex civil litigation than state courts, and as a result, they are often quick to refuse class certification in complicated cases. Indeed, no federal class of tobacco plaintiffs has ever been successfully certified. State courts are better suited to adjudicate complex class actions. State courts' civil dockets often move with greater speed than their federal counterparts due to a smaller caseload and greater experience with the state's civil laws.


The Truth About Class Actions

So-called class action “reform” is intended to weaken and discourage class actions and substantially lessen their value as a weapon for consumers victimized by negligence, fraud and reckless misconduct. The business proponents of this “reform” know the true benefits that class actions provide consumers.
Class actions promote efficiency and level the playing field. Class actions give persons who are injured in the same manner by the same defendants the ability to hold the wrongdoers accountable. They are an efficient mechanism to deal with what would otherwise be a large number of small and repetitive cases with the same facts and the same law. Class actions make it economically feasible to seek justice for smaller, but not inconsequential injuries. Collective action also creates the power and ability to level the playing field between ordinary citizens and powerful defendants.


Class actions promote safety.

In addition to providing a remedy for injured consumers, successful class actions often prohibit companies from engaging in specific unsafe practices. Moreover, the potential of a successful class action motivates business to weigh consumer protection and safety in their “bottom line” decisions, resulting in safer products for all Americans.


Class actions protect our health and environment.

By allowing groups of citizens to band together and demand a healthy environment, class actions often result in courts requiring companies to stop poisoning neighborhoods, lakes, streams and air. Without the class action tool, it would often be impossible for ordinary citizens to take on powerful defendants when they damage the environment and cause illness.


Federal and state judges oppose federalizing state class actions.

The Federal Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and the Conference of Chief Justices, which represents the state chief justices, oppose federalizing state class actions based on principles of federalism and judicial workload. No one representing the judicial branch of government thinks usurping the power of state courts is a good idea.


Proposed reforms will further backlog the already overburdened federal courts.

Federalizing state class actions would exponentially delay the judicial process for injured consumers and other class action plaintiffs. Federal courts, already overwhelmed by the large number of criminal drug cases and a substantial judicial vacancy rate, do not have the resources to handle complex issues of state law. Moreover, federal courts are facing a huge budget crisis, which forces them to cut court hours and lay off employees.


Congress should support balanced court reforms.

While there are some reasonable reforms of class action procedures to be considered, any such changes must balance the rights of both defendants and plaintiffs. Instead, proponents of reform often seek to advance the priorities of Big Business while undermining court protections for average citizens.

http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/president/Smith050210.aspx

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Not anymore and its just the beginning


http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/president/Smith050210.aspx

Argh. They took something that needed to be done but went too extreme with it. Blah.

Federalizing everything wasn't the way to solve the problem. It's like there's a fly on your nice dinner plates, so you hit it with a sledgehammer.

 

[satch919]

There was a study done by an organization about corporate lawsuits. I'll try to find the article in the Los Angeles Times.

This independant analysis went on to show that corporations were four times as likely to bring charges against civilians than civilians against a corporation. Again, I'll try to find this article. It had something to do with a case about a mining company whose workers were getting cancer because of being exposed to asbestos.

 

[satch919]

HA! After some searching, I found the article. SUCCESS!!

It was posted on Wednesday Feb. 16th in The Sun newspaper.

Read the entire article.

I think corporations believe that they are above the law because they have access to lots of money and defensive lawyers. There's a lot of consumers and workers who have valid cases against these companies. Does that mean that they aren't entitled to prove their case in court?

 

[Korgoth]

Now why didn't they put this on the ballot this year instead of that question about gay marriage, which affects me in no way what so ever, i'll never know.

 

[Pressure]

Now why didn't they put this on the ballot this year instead of that question about gay marriage, which affects me in no way what so ever, i'll never know.

I don't think the outcome would have been quite what they wanted that way.

 

[RZAL]

HA! After some searching, I found the article. SUCCESS!!
It was posted on Wednesday Feb. 16th in The Sun newspaper.
I think corporations believe that they are above the law because they have access to lots of money and defensive lawyers. There's a lot of consumers and workers who have valid cases against these companies. Does that mean that they aren't entitled to prove their case in court?

Interesting, justice in the United States is now a commodity that can be bought and sold at the expense of the people.

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

 

[Bodacious]

Interesting, justice in the United States is now a commodity that can be bought and sold at the expense of the people.

It has always been that way. Where have you been?

 

[RZAL]

It has always been that way. Where have you been?

Trying to stop it.

 

[satch919]

It has always been that way.

Doesn't make it right. These corporations need to be put in their place.

 

[No Limit]

Wait a second, tort reform has been needed. It's not stopping people from suing. You will see healthcare costs lowered because of this, since the insurance healthcare providers have to buy will not be as imminent. You will see frivelous lawsuits decline in huge numbers. No more lawsuits because you didn't know microwaving your cat was not an appropriate way to dry it after a bath.

How will this lower health care costs? Bush tried to say this in the campaign but it has been disproven a long time ago; lawsuits are only around 1% of all expenses for large medical corporations (I will look this statistic up in a little bit).

EDIT: Here it is (disporves the figure Bush used):

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

 

[Scoobnfl]

So far everyone has been concerned about the cost of big business and lawsuits, not once have I noticed anyone mention sovereignty of the states.

what about the sovereignty of states concerning gay marriage, abortion, etc........?

 

[Raziaar]

What the hell is up with everybody attacking the average, middle man republican about big buisness anyways? I'm against big buisness just as much as the next guy. I hate it. And many, hundreds of thousands of your average joe republicans hate it too. Republicans aren't the only rich, big corporation people in this country. Many, many democrats are too, especially in some of the most influencial, powerful places in the country, such as New York.

The blame game isn't doing any good when its labelled against 'democrats' or 'republicans'. It should only be the pro big buisness people being pointed at, simply put, and not these bullshit blanket statements against people who hate it just as much as the next guy.

 

[mortiz]

pff, more proof that it's the Corporations who are really in charge of the United States.