Posted on 10/16/2007 7:32:04 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Kind of ironic you Fredheads would be hung up on lawyers since Fred aligns himself with them and the dem-controlled lawyer lobby and opposes tort reform. Another reason I chose Mitt over Fred. We need tort reform.
“Aligning himself with trial lawyers was another seeming contradiction in Thompson’s varied career — a Republican who succeeded in Hollywood, a former lobbyist who lives in Northern Virginia, now positioning himself to run for president as a Washington outsider.
In the Senate, Thompson routinely voted against legislation aimed at shrinking the size of fees that attorneys could collect and rejected limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, bucking his own party. Most Republicans supported such reforms, arguing that trial lawyers routinely filed frivolous lawsuits or won unnecessarily large awards that drove up the cost of insurance and products.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1871712/posts
"You can have affordable health care and a good environment for jobs. Or you can have rich trial lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Not both." ~~ Newt Gingrich
"Last year, U.S. corporations spent more money on tort claims than they did on R&D. If innovation is the key to our long term leadership, then some tort lawyers are cashing out our country's future....tort lawyers are ok with state reform, but not national reform. You know what state level tort reform means - it means that as long as there is one lawsuit-friendly state, they can sue almost any major, deep-pocketed company in America. No thanks, America needs national tort reform." ~~ Mitt Romney
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#spending
"The current system of litigation is too expensive for America, fails to provide justice for Americans and is being made steadily worse and more expensive by increasingly predatory trial lawyers who have more and more resources devoted to gaming the system to enrich themselves at the expense of individual Americans and American society. This is especially true in the healthcare system. Doctors are more important to our nation's health care system than trial lawyers. In order to ensure the availability of doctors it is important to create and/or maintain hard caps on non-economic damages in medical liability cases." ~~Newt Gingrich
http://www.senatorfredsmith.com/content/Pages/show/id/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2NBrSuNgN4 (Thompson's Tort Trouble)
Oh really? At the federal level? What gives Congress the authority to impose their views on the state bar associations?
Well, yes, according to the GOP platform, Newt Gingrich and Judge Bork for starters.
Keeping with the GOP platform, the co-founder of the Federalist Society, Judge Robert Bork, is willing to make an exception to federalist principles for national tort reform in the nation's best interest:
Judge Bork has been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs' ability to recover through tort law. Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:
"State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate."
http://www.acsblog.org/economic-regulation-employment-leading-conservative-activist-seeks-punitive-damages.html
relying on his actual record
Funny you should mention that - his record is exactly why I don't trust Romney.
Look, I understand that you support him. Great for you. But to then presume that those who have decided not to did so because of "DNC talking points" is both silly and wrong.
I wonder if Thompson is still for eliminating the Republican Party platform? That would be a good debate question for him.
It’s not silly or wrong at all. Most FReepers have not studied Mitt’s actual record at all and are entirely clueless as to how he governed in Massachusetts. Also, I find it absolutely amazing how many people don’t know that Romney’s positions align with the GOP platform much more than do Fred’s, Rudy’s or McCain’s. In any event, I have yet to see something terribly objectionable that he did, it’s all about what he once allegedly said. We will have to agree to disagree, I guess. “So be it,” as Fred once said.
I wonder if Thompson is still for eliminating the Republican Party platform? That would be a good debate question for him.
Good question.
I'm sure that is true in some cases. But to then extrapolate that all or even most people who don't trust Mitt's new line are "clueless" is silly and, in my case at least, dead wrong.
I have done my homework. I take this election very seriously. Mitt seems like a nice guy, but I don't trust what he says on the issues.
This isn't personal. Please don't try to make it so.
Gov. Arnold is working similar mischief here in CA. Birds of a feather...
Well, that's fine, it's just that you are contradicting yourself. You first said you were basing your rejection of him on his record (his record is exactly why I don't trust Romney) and then when I point out how conservative his actual record is, you flip back and say it is because you "don't trust what he says on the issues." That's entirely different. Your position is crystal clear.
No, no, no.
He talks a good game. Always has. But his record is nowhere near as conservative as you would like to believe.
You may choose to believe that he has changed his spots (and just in time to run for President - fancy that!), but I'll stick to the actual facts, thank you.
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.