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: chalu2 who wrote (37624)	9/17/2000 5:21:05 PM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

What a crock of an argument. Kind of what I expect from a lawyer. I didn't say that I don't believe in trial by jury, but I will say that as times have changed since the Constitution was written, the feasibility of getting a fair trial has decreased. The concept of fairness is not exhibited in some of the high profile cases. There may or may not be thousands of cases that are fair, but when big money is involved, it appears that a lot of shenanigans are pulled. Politics also become involved. I will not back down from my belief that corruption runs amuck in our court system. What constitutional protections do I have now? If I am a law-abiding citizen, none. I don't have the right of free speech unless it is politically correct. I don't have the right to assemble, i.e., protesting at abortion clinics. I don't have freedom of religion, can't pray in school or prior to athletic contests. People such as Al Gore and his cronies claim that I don't even have the right to bear arms. His justice department has filed briefs to that effect. Justice is becoming a farce as citizens become more and more numb to the concept of right and wrong. Lawyers in profiled cases cause a lot of that feeling. I'll end with a quote from the most notable of lawyer deceit that I have ever heard,"It depends what the definition of is is."knc

To: chalu2 who wrote (37624)	9/17/2000 5:38:39 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Chalu2, TORT laws aren't a constitutional right. By manipulating the process upon which jurors are selected. By supporting the revolving door "good old boy network" between judges, lawyers and politicians, TORT reform has become necessary. Judges allow far too many cases to drag on forever in order to allow lawyers to milk the system. Microsoft spending in excess of 5 BILLION dollars to defend its assault by a bunch of politicians and lawyers is a national disgrace! The legal professions inability to police its own ethical standards lie at the root cause of why TORT reform is now necessary. Ambulance chasing lawyers, who encourage clients to lie are a common accepted practice these days. The legal profession always had a special responsibility to uphold ethical standards for the good of the nation. And far too many of them have abused their trust as a representative of the court. It's all about money with them now, and ethics be damned! Well guess what? When you have a system which is broke, because the foundation of it lacks the moral clarity and vision to correct itself, laws become necessary. Loser pays should be enacted today. If you lose, you pay! It's simple and it may lesson the frivolous law-suits which are costing our nations plenty. Both in financial cost and in cultural costs. Public schools should be exempt from money sucking spineless lawyers attempting to retire on our backs early. Children's sports activities should also be exempt. The legal profession should step up to the plate and do what's right. Instead of paying off a bunch of (mostly Democratic) politicians to keep their gravy train of low ethical mores alive. We need to look for common sense ways in which to support our businesses from the onslaught of a legal profession out of control. TORT reform, enacted thoughtfully, might just do that.