Posted on 10/10/2009 12:38:25 PM PDT by Huck
I hear you. I’ve got better things to do than argue against anti-paleos.
Reform is probably hopeless. The people are clueless. Devolved, soft, flabby, distracted, and utterly clueless. It’s amazing it’s still so livable, considering the circumstnces. The long train of abuses will roll on.
Aye, but does a state government’s intervention really that much better than a Federal government’s intervention? Perhaps. As much as I hate the trial lawyers, I hate the government that much more.
Well, insofar as it is at least 90+% certain that it’s current federal law that may be hanging up either tort reform or allowing interstate sales of health insurance, a simple repeal of such illegitimate “laws” would be in order. Then keep the Feddie nose out from under the tent!
I think the issue here is that Ron Paul is opposing federal Tort reform on state courts because it conflicts with the originalist type reading of the constitution that protects the states from the federal government power. Is that what you are asking me about?
How about the federal ban on partial birth abortion? There is a similar conflict.
It's better because it's smaller, closer and thereby(in theory) more accountable to its electorate, and (again in theory) more likely to be in sync with its electorate. Also, there's the whole labratories of democracy concept--several states are trying various forms of tort reform. (One more time in theory) We benefit from the variety of experiments, and are not locked into one top-down approach.
I'm not saying I am FOR state gubmint intervention--just saying it's for each state to decide for itself through the republican process.
That's not the case. Many states (I think it's in the double digits) have enacted their own tort reform, and as far as I know, are free to do so. Nothing's holding it up. It's happening. What is being held up is FEDERAL tort reform. Oddly, the so-called conservative party is for it, and the DEMs are against it. But here's a case where the DEMs are right for the wrong reasons. And the GOP is just plain wrong.
Same goes for the interstate issue. It's individual state law that is at issue. It's simple. An insurance company can sell in any state if they comply with that state's law. The GOP wants to supercede state law--basically nullify state law--and force states to allow any insurance company to do business in their state, meeting federal standards, which would be lower than the standards in some states. It's unconstitutional. And a bad idea. Let each state govern themselves, as it should be.
I’m with you on all of it. Just thought you might like to chime in. If you see my comments above, I was chastising talk radio stars. That’s what made me think of you.
Under the 10th Amendment, it’s certainly more Constitutional. I guess it’s the principal that bothers me some.
It shouldn't even require the 10th amendment,which is a dead letter anyway. If you are saying you oppose even state-level tort reform, that's fine. It may be that even at the state level tort reform is a bad idea. If that's the case, I assume you oppose federal tort reform. It's a bit of a reality check to realize that our so-called conservative talkers--Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc--all advocate federal tort reform. It just shows you how trustworthy they are on the fundamentals.
Your point is taken, that the jury is probably even closer to the people than the state gubmint. Although, given the nature of our populace, juries scare me too.
Me, too.
Not so much because of the jury system itself, but because judges (and prosecutors) preemptively dismiss any potential juror who understands that the jury has a duty to judge the law as well as the facts. Jurors are "instructed" by the judge, and those instructions limit what can be considered in the jury room to just those topics the judge wants discussed. Anyone breaching those instructions, if reported to the judge, can be held in contempt.
This, of course, was not the way juries worked in the early days of the Republic. They were independent until federal court actions in the late 19th century tipped the balance in favor of judges (and prosecutors).
We might as well forget about ever getting a lower court to rule that the fedguv has overstepped its bounds. A jury is as unlikely to tackle that head-on as a judge is.
The American people are quite docile. Life is still to comfortable for anyone to get serious. Myself included. I have a nice home, I love my job. I just want to be left in peace. And our political class is corrupt. What we chalk up to ineptitude is probably almost always corruption. And each side (the voters, I mean) seem to think only the other side does it. I think it’s all a sham, like pro-wrestling. Bread and circuses.
Hannity and Levin lost their small government credentials when they shilled for the Patriot Act, MCA, DHS, et all expansions of government for “protection.” As far as Tort, I guess it’s a lesser of two evils argument. I can’t come down on either side really, since both have positives and negatives. In the end, I’d probably take state Torn reform since it seems to have more positives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.