Woman Goes Nuclear At California Town Hall Meeting
Link: http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/
Duration : 0:2:24
Recommended Reading
- 3 Keys to Small Business Marketing
- Precisely What Is 21st. Century Leadership? Do You Have What It Requires?
- Privately Held Businesses Are Only Truly Successful When They Outlive Their Creators
- Family Organizational Transition Planning is Really Strategic Planning
- Small Business Marketing Research
Brian Sussman of …
Brian Sussman of KSFO has been playing this on his radio alot this week.She told Sussman tonight how she went to Washington with 75,000 other people at the invitation of Michelle Bachman.I am also under the impression that she owns a bakery to.
That lady …
That lady absolutely owned.
Pure ownage. And, it was very well spoken and expressed with tremendous passion.
If a poor person …
If a poor person has truly been wronged, there’s a whole pile of personal injury lawyers out there who will gladly take on his cause. However, if that person is just rolling the dice to see if he can get a big settlement for Pizza Hut putting onions on his pizza instead of mushrooms, well that doesn’t need to be settled in a court of law. The risk of having to pay Pizza Hut’s legal fees is a deterent to filing such ridiculous case. Without tort reform, there is no such deterrent.
Under real tort …
Under real tort reform, the losing plaintiff only pays the defense’s fees IF the judge DISMISSES the case before it even goes to verdict. That is a big distinction. If your lawsuit goes to the jury and they find for the defendant, oh well, you lose. But, in that instance you don’t pay the defendent’s fees because the case was decided by a verdict, not a dismissal. Also, your concern about poor people not being able to file a lawsuit for fear of having to pay if they lost is shallow.
The fundamental …
The fundamental falisy in your position is you assume that everyone should have a right to file a lawsuit. Legally, you’re right. You can file against anybody for any reason. This is one of the main reasons our court system is so clogged up now. You also assume that tort reform is equivalent to “loser pays.” It is not. That is not what we are talking about with respect to tort reform. Under loser pays, if you file a lawsuit, and you lose that lawsuit, you pay the cost of the defense.
@rwalden2007 what …
@rwalden2007 what you are missing is the ability for all citizens, no matter there station, to air out a grievence. you have not spoken to this point, though it has been brought several times. loser pays means lessers will bow their heads and walk away. again, the Judge will determine merit. not the personal finances of the plantiffs.
@rwalden2007 and …
@rwalden2007 and again, any Law that limits the perogatives of the Judical Branch … has its days numbered (nutshell)
@rwalden2007 your ” …
@rwalden2007 your “HAHA” statement… i like you, brother, i do. i just dont think you are hearing me. the Legislative branch can pass any law it likes. it is the Judical branch’s perogative to strike down and rule any Law unconstitutional. that’s all…
@rwalden2007 no no …
@rwalden2007 no no i am agueing what i belive to be so but as i said i will think on what you have said.
@rwalden2007 i hear …
@rwalden2007 i hear what you are saying and will think on it. at present, i dint think this is the best solution to this problem.
HAHAHAHAH! Okay, I …
HAHAHAHAH! Okay, I get it, you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. Alright, I’ll play along for one more round. You ready? Here we go.
Tort reform does not in any way, fashion, or form limit the power of the Judicial Branch. It simply means that when that branch exercises it’s power by dismissing a case which deserves to be dismissed, then the party that brought that case to begin with is responsible for paying the legal fees of the party against whom that suit was filed.
@rwalden2007 many …
@rwalden2007 many Laws have been passed by the Legislative Branch and existed for years before they reached their way and were struck down by the Supreme Court… yes?
But don’t you get …
But don’t you get it. Right now, in most states, it’s a crap shoot. Anybody can sue anybody else, regardless of how strong your case is. And why not? Take a shot. Maybe you’ll get a sympathetic judge. Maybe you’ll really get lucky and get a sympathetic judge and a sympathetic jury. But if you don’t, no matter. It was worth a shot, right. Tort reform, the risk that you will have to pay for your opponents legal fees, is designed to deter this type of nonsense.
@rwalden2007 if im …
@rwalden2007 if im wrong tell me. however, it seems to be limiting the Judicial branches rights. it is for them to decide weather a case has merit or not. yes?
Dude, it has …
Dude, it has nothing to do with the 3 branches of government. If you want to argue that tort reform is unconstitutional that’s your perogative. I think that is a ridiculous position to take, but that’s on you. You were the one that said tort reform was passed in Carolina. If it is constitutional in Carolina, I don’t really see why it wouldn’t be in other states; but, again, that’s an argument you are welcomed to make.
@rwalden2007 by …
@rwalden2007 by following the money and seeing who has the most to lose finacially, you can determine where this “bullshit” arguement originated from.
@rwalden2007 follow …
@rwalden2007 follow the money !!!
@rwalden2007 in a …
@rwalden2007 in a constitutional sense i dont know about the, loser pays bit. my personal impression is that those with money will be able and more likely to bring law suits and less fortunate will be less likely. again, and hopefully for the last time, the Judge has the power of dismissle. this is before the case even comes to trial. if it is deamed without merit it will not be tried !!!! the “clog” bit is a red-herring… in my opinion.
@rwalden2007 3 …
@rwalden2007 3 branches of Government (equal but seperate) the executive -President, the legislative-Congress and the Judicial-the courts… if a Law is passed to tailor or weaken the other it is unconstitional…know this !!!
cottonrun101, are …
cottonrun101, are you stupid or are you just with me? For the last time, let me repeat myself……”…when a judge, using all the tools available to him, makes such a ruling (dismissal), the plaintiff should pay the defense’s legal bills.” This IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER prevents a judge from making the exact same rulings he would make without tort reform. It simply means that when he does dismiss a case (that btw deserves to be dismissed), the plaintiff pays the defense’s fees.
@rwalden2007 but …
@rwalden2007 but the Judge already has this power, of “dismissal”. this is the very point !!! Reform of “tort” law however explained, seeks to take aay – Judicial descry- and make all rulings uniform. the third branch of government is made subsurvient and incapable of performing its duties!! it will be to the detriment of the populace ! this must not happen… there are alterior motives at work here.
…Continued.
…
…Continued.
The idea behind tort reform is when a plaintiff’s case is so weak that the judge dismisses that case without even requiring the defendant to defend against it……in those situations the plaintiff should be assessed the defendant’s legal expenses. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that judges are morons (other than you). We are simply saying that when a judge, using all the tools available to him, makes such a ruling (dismissal), the plaintiff should pay the defenses bills.
I can’t speak for …
I can’t speak for how it works in Carolina, I’m not from there. In most jurisdictions, judges ARE NOT morons. They are experienced, thoughtful, and well-versed in the law. As such, they can of course “spot” frivolity and rule accordingly by dismissing a case because, in layman’s terms, the plaintiff has no case. When that happens, in these other jurisdictions, the defendant is still reponsible for the legal fees they incurred to defend against the suit, even though that suit was dismissed.
@rwalden2007 ummm.. …
@rwalden2007 ummm… ok so your take is that “Judges” sitting on the bench are morons and cant spot frivolity? what im saying is that this kind of reform kuffs Judges hands behind their back. they will have no choice but to rule in favor of the Professional…. where am i going wrong?
Under tort reform, …
Under tort reform, you have nothing to fear IF you have legitimately been harmed by a physician (or anyone else for that matter). However, if someone files a lawsuit against you, and there is no basis in law for that suit, and that suit is dismissed specifically because it is frivolous, why shouldn’t the person who brought that suit be penalized by having to pay your legal bills incurred to defend that suit? That’s what real tort reform is all about…..nothing more.