Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (37505)	9/16/2000 10:57:24 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

As a lawyer I will admit to cringing whenever trial lawyers are bashed, because I know they do much good. But also, intellectually, I just have never understood how all the anti-regulation, pro-common folk conservatives can be so gung ho to have governmental regulation of tort law. My legal background has shown me that a lawyer may bring a tort case, but still the plaintiff is usually not himself, but a common citizen (and very rarely is that common citizen some corporation-bashing zealot). The lawyer pleads the case, but he does not decide the motion that is inevitably made to dismiss it--that decision is made by a judge. The trial lawyer cannot force a verdict in his client's favor--a positive verdict must be rendered by the 6-12 ordinary people chosen from the jury pool. These people are presumably the voice of the community, and are not selected based on political affiliation or any other nefarious standard. Finally, it is not the trial lawyer that sets damages--if a big damage award is forthcoming it is again because these citizen-jurors thought it was appropriate.. They make this decision with out any aid of politicians or the legislature. Many times they exonerate the defendants. In either case, the verdict is their decision, not that of the tort lawyer. As the trial lawyers are bringing, but not deciding, cases (this power having traditionally been vested in the citizens of the community), isn't it utter hypocrisy for conservatives to favor legislating away the people's power in this area?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (37505)	9/17/2000 5:09:20 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<Not only is Gore dumb, he's venal. His solicitation of $100,000 from the trial lawyer Walter Umphrey in exchange for a presidential veto would have been called bribery in the pre-Clinton era. >> Heard the rest of the story on McLaughlin Group today. Umphrey was one of five lawyers contacted and after the $500k was collected Clinton vetoed the bill. Now you may ask why five lawyers would pony up $100k each for a veto. Well, the Umphrey Five were the 5 lawyers who took $3.3 BBB Billion of the taxpayers money for their work on the tobacco settlement. Without the veto their payday would have been reduced substantially. At least we found out what the going rate for a democratic veto is.