Skip to comments.
Texas Republican Party Platform Thread 127 (Tort/Civil Justice Reform)
Brown County GOP Website ^
| June, 2002
| Republican Party of Texas
Posted on 02/19/2003 5:07:54 AM PST by Bigun
The Republican Party of Texas Platform has been MUCH in the news of late because it is a CONSERVATIVE document and, as such, VERY controversial. I thought it would be an instructive exercise, for those of us who wish to do so here, to go through it plank by plank and see where we stand on these issues. Pursuant to that, I will post ONE plank of the Platform, every few days and anyone who wishes to can state their views as to that particular part of the platform.
Today, under the heading Strengthening The Economy Of Texas And America sub-heading Tort/Civil Justice Reform we find the following plank :
The Party strongly supports continuation of common sense tort reform that puts justice back into our civil justice system. We support abolishing joint and several liabilities that forces people to pay for damages they did not cause. We support a loser pay rule, thereby discouraging frivolous lawsuits. We oppose the abusive use of class action lawsuits.
(Excerpt) Read more at browncountytexasrepublicanparty.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: party; planks; platform; republican; texas
I have decided to score myself by assigning a score of between 0 and 10 points to each of the planks! 10 means I agree with EVERYTHING in it. 0 means I agree with NOTHING in it.
10 more points brings my running score to this point to 1156 of a possible 1270.
1
posted on
02/19/2003 5:07:55 AM PST
by
Bigun
To: Cato; Commander8; Pern; austingirl; sinkspur; IronJack; dixie sass; Taxman; Ragin1; Dog Gone; ...
2
posted on
02/19/2003 5:11:44 AM PST
by
Bigun
To: Bigun
I agree with most of this, but joint and several liability is grounded in common sense. If you are doing an activity for our joint benefit, and you have an accident, that's partly my responsibility. If you're going to share in the reward, you have to share in the risk.
Otherwise, nobody would ever do anything except solely for themselves. That's inefficient, and bad policy.
3
posted on
02/19/2003 5:41:21 AM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Bigun
I see this Texas post on here everyday and I was just curious why it always falls under foreign affairs? Just wondering...
4
posted on
02/19/2003 5:46:21 AM PST
by
Enemy Of The State
(Better to be dead than to be French)
To: Enemy Of The State
Because some elements have dealt with that subject.
5
posted on
02/19/2003 5:58:28 AM PST
by
Bigun
To: Bigun
8 points. Second sentence needs modification and/or removal (In agreement with Dog Gone). Otherwise acceptable.
1063/1270 (0.837)
6
posted on
02/19/2003 6:34:53 AM PST
by
PetroniDE
(WAR ON !!!)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson