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: greenspirit who wrote (37638)	9/17/2000 5:54:11 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

But isn't the answer to unethical acts the same gun users put forward--if a law is broken, then enforce it. But don't take away our basic rights. Tort reform is an assault on your right to trial by jury. Tort laws existed at the time the nation was founded. The right to a jury trial was established in the Seventh Amendment so that the people could not be oppressed by wealthy interests with legislative clout. In early times, "tort reform" would have consisted of law stating that anyone injured on a large landholder's estate would have no right to sue, or limited damages. Legislators would have readily passed such laws if not for fear of the Seventh Amendment. It is only in recent decades, as we have seen a growing disrespect for Constitutional rights from both the right and the left, that we see these increasingly successful attacks on both the Second and Seventh amendments. If gun owners had poor ethical standads, or poor safety records, that still wouldn't undo the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Poor journalistic ethics shouldn't lead to the effective repeal of theFirst Amendment. Rampant crime shouldn't eviscerate our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. And poor legal ethics by some shouldn't undo the people's right to have their rights determined by juries, and not by Congress or the state legislature. Remember--you can't knock down one Constitutional right, without fatally weakening all of them. Each Amendment leads to some results we don't like; it is the price we pay to live in a Constitutional republic. >>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!<< I don't understand this example. I doubt the Microsoft judge--a Republican appointee--allowed the case to drag on so that the lawyers could run up fees. Government civil actions like this are not the object of tort reform. Plus, the Judge found Microsoft guilty. I am in no position to say he was in error. I do agree that the system is too expensive.

To: greenspirit who wrote (37638)	9/17/2000 5:54:54 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

<<The legal profession always had a special responsibility to uphold ethical standards for the good of the nation.>> Back in '87 I had my wrist crushed by a rank horse. A lawyer contacted me about suing the doctor who did the fixing. He said any cast is worth $10,000 in malpractice. Naturally, being a conservative, I told him no. Just didn't make sense. Same lawyer won a $20 million against GTE, family sued. A guy who was way over drunk and going way over the speed limit hit a pot hole and lost control over his car. While the car was doing an end over he got tossed out, not wearing his seat belt, and lost his head to a guy wire on a right of way. It was overturned.