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.
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.