Yes, you are correct, but even the legislature should not pass laws that overstep their Constitutional authority. If they do, they will most likely be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. With the vast majority of cases making their way quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court via the writ of certiori, it has become easier for parties to take their case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many people besides me, and various organizations, would have a major problem philosophically and ideologically with tort reform, including the American Trial Lawyers Assocation and even the American Bar Association.
"Face it, the only way that people with legitimate cases are ever going to get through the courts in a fair and timely way is through tort reform. Loser pays."
Lawyers should not be held liable for a decision that is ulimately up to a judge and jury. Lawyers are in business, and their business is negotiating conflict. Generating business means negotiating conflict and lawyers for the most part should not be held liable for doing their jobs and representing the rights of people often wronged by big corporations, municipalities, hospitals, insurance companies, or anyone who may have civilly wronged them.
Just as businesses search for new products, lawyers search for new legal principles upon which to draw legitimate cases and lawsuits. In fact, lawyers have been very successful over the past few years in expanding tort liability.
I would like to see you say to someone whose relative was killed by a hospital infection, or someone whose life was greatly altered because of someone else's negligance, that there should be price caps on their loss, pain, and suffering.
"The trial lawyers of America have decided our courts are their own personal playground and have made a mockery of our judicial system with their frivilous suits."
Trial lawyers are just doing their jobs by representing the interests of wronged citizens. You forgot to mention that somewhere along the line, a presiding judge gives the okay for a suit to go forward and a jury decides if the defendent is guilty of the allegations levied against them.
"I suppose you think suing McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King & KFC is a GOOD thing? Trial lawyers trying to line their pockets."
In a free society where American citizens have the Constitutional right to file suit for civil wrongs, that is just how the system works. I would not support taking away a citizens' right to file civil suits against big corporations, businesses, hospitals, municipalities, and insurance companies. American citizens should always have the fundamental right to file suit against those who have wronged them, including 3rd parties.
If the presiding judge believes the case to be frivilous and without merit, they will simply throw the case out of court.
The American citizen must be in possession of a tool by which they can use to fight back for civil wrongs committed against them by oftentimes, wasteful and abuse corporations and big businesses. Tort reform would greatly hinder this ability and lessen the need for accountability.
Wrong again, I see.
Stop digging. You look sillier and sillier. I told you you do NOT know what you're talking about.
Of course they would have a problem with it. It would cut off their gravy train.
"Lawyers should not be held liable for a decision that is ulimately up to a judge and jury."
But a lawyer that brings a suit that he/she knows is frivilous is in violation of the legal code of ethics and the law.
"I would like to see you say to someone whose relative was killed by a hospital infection, or someone whose life was greatly altered because of someone else's negligance, that there should be price caps on their loss, pain, and suffering." Life is dangerous. All the money in the world will not bring back a loved one. Should there be an award for negligence or intentional wrong doing? Sure. Should the lawyers get 20% or even 30% of it. Hardly.
Interestingly, the criminal lawyers I've talked to and listened to all believe that we do need tort reform.