Replies

It's my private property. I choose not to wear a seat belt. The national government has no place in how I use my private property. If. God forbid, I go through the windshield, it's my own fault. How did people drive before the mid 80s when a nosy, power hungry, nanny type Republican DOT Secretary (who BTW I'm now stuck with as a 'conservative' Senator) first forced the states to enact such legislation? Didn't have a lot of lawsuits then did we? Perhaps the situation calls more for a change in what trial lawyers can and cannot do than it calls for an abridgement of the liberty of the citizens of the respective states. Little did we know why Mrs. Dole put the rule into play for mandatory seat belts . . . to prevent trial lawyers from making a mockery of the system from being worse. Any conservative would love to derail a trial lawyer's favourite way to milk money out of industry. Make it impossible for them to sue and collect damages for negligence, and the trial lawyers are out millions.

Any conservative would love to derail a trial lawyer's favourite way to milk money out of industry. Make it impossible for them to sue and collect damages for negligence, and the trial lawyers are out millions.

Not at the expense of finishing off any power the states have against the national government. This nation was designed to be a federal republic, not a socialist democracy. Every law passed at the national level that is not covered in the Constitution just goes a little further down the road of making that document worthless. I'll take my chances with trial lawyers if it means that the states decide, and not some bureaucrat in Washington, on their internal affairs and their respective citizens.

Little did we know why Mrs. Dole put the rule into play for mandatory seat belts . . . to prevent trial lawyers from making a mockery of the system from being worse

I seriously doubt that. Have you ever heard the woman give a speech? She's like an overprotective mother. Can't have certain guns because of the children. Have to lock ourselves down in our cars because of the children. Need to destroy tobacco manufacturers while 'promising' tobacco farmers they'll get more money in the buyout program. Why? Of course smoking is bad for you, and the children. 18 years can go fight but danged if they can drink. You really, really need a bag of air blowing up in your face in an accident because some crackpot safety group said so.

This 'conservative' Senator was involved in all of these actions. Mind you not while she was elected for most of them but rather appointed. And every one of these moves took away decisions from the citizens of the respective states and put them in Washington. Because she knew better than we did.