[tpaine]

The judge makes some good points about the corruption of "tort" law and laying a lot of blame on trial lawyers, but she conveniently ignores the corruption of federal judges concerning "constitutional" law.
For examples,
--does she support the 2nd amendment as an individual right? --does she believe that search and seizures by "federalized" security personnel at airports violates the 4th amendment? --does she believe that unfunded federal regulations imposed on business violates the 5th amendment? --does she believe that Art I Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause" does not have jurisdiction within state boundaries? --does she believe in the sanctity of Art I, Section 8, Clause 17, jurisdiction of federal legislation within the boundaries of a state? --does she believe in plethora of individual rights protected by the 9th amendment?
I would say she probably does not.
She probably believes in the dictum of "compelling state interest" which is the dictum that has inverted our constitutional republic from a republic of limited government from the consent of the governed, to virtually unlimited government without the consent of the governed.
Other than a few "free speech" constitutional challenges from time to time, will we ever see a federal judge rule from the point of few of a "presumption of liberty" versus "the balancing between private rights and public needs?" No.
That my friends is the true corruption of our legal system.
14 -tahiti-
__________________________________

Well said, & bears repeating.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Are you taking time out from criticizing Bush because Iraq didn't collapse into a law abiding society within 3 weeks?

Isn't it looking for problems to read things into a speech when your entire judicial philosophy is not reflected within a 30 minute speech by another person?

Jeeez.