I don't understand why conservatives hate the courts so much.
Conservatives usually like to talk about how we have fundamental God-given rights, rather than gov't-given rights. But then they want to be strict constructionists, for whom every little detail has to be explicitly written into the Constitution, or you don't have that fundamental right. We should just let people vote on our rights, and hope for the best? Is that a conservative principle? As a liberal democrat, I'm for fundamental rights that limit gov't power, rather than hoping that more than half the people in my state decide I can have civil liberties as long as they think it's OK.
With respect to tort law, again, conservatives say they don't like gov't regulation, but if you had no tort law, absolutely everything would have to be government regulation. The threat of liability suits makes corporations do the right thing without having to read some gov't regulation. And if they're accused of not doing the right thing, real people guided by the law can decide who is liable, rather than some gov't bureaucrats.
All you've stated is that lawsuits against the tobacco industry opened up corporations to supposedly frivilous law suits.
You still haven't explained how that effects you.
All I'm asking is for you to prove your point.
And your comparison of Gay Marriage to incest is tired and lame.
Ok one last clarifying statement, Then let's agree to disagree. OK?
frivolous lawsuits cost corporations money, attempting to avoid such also costs corporations money, thus costing every person that buys products directly or indirectly pays for that cost. Therefore higher costs for any given product. That helps no-one except lawyers and the plaintiffs.
I am all for the court system, and it works most of the time. But like I was trying to point out one judge with poor judgment (that sound funny) can alter the way courts handle frivolous lawsuits.
I don't understand why conservatives hate the courts so much.
Conservatives usually like to talk about how we have fundamental God-given rights, rather than gov't-given rights. But then they want to be strict constructionists, for whom every little detail has to be explicitly written into the Constitution, or you don't have that fundamental right. We should just let people vote on our rights, and hope for the best? Is that a conservative principle? As a liberal democrat, I'm for fundamental rights that limit gov't power, rather than hoping that more than half the people in my state decide I can have civil liberties as long as they think it's OK.
With respect to tort law, again, conservatives say they don't like gov't regulation, but if you had no tort law, absolutely everything would have to be government regulation. The threat of liability suits makes corporations do the right thing without having to read some gov't regulation. And if they're accused of not doing the right thing, real people guided by the law can decide who is liable, rather than some gov't bureaucrats.
This like many issues discussed here are often common sense rather than left/right. Our judges should base their decisions on common sense rather than any left/right leaning. Because we all know that both ends of the spectrum can be a little wacky and extreme.
The left however has figured if you install judges that put politics ahead of common sense, you get issues around the constitutional way of doing things.
As far as tort law, i agree. But frivolous law suits should be identified for what they are and rejected. They are not and the whole tobacco suit proved that. I do agree that if they lied they should be accountable. So I agree about that part. But the lawyers used ignorance a basis to sue. That is the part that hurts the legal system.
It doesn't give them to you. But it does define them.
According to the framers it was ... God... that gave us our rights and the government's job to uphold and protect them. I know some hate to here the G word.
So, are we really hearing an argument against the mere existence of tort law, and in addition, an argument that doesn't even address theories of tort law?
Comments
They just said there was nothing in the laws that allows them to exclude same sex people from a state recognized marriage.
And then the legislature might pass a law banning same sex marriages... then it's the courts job to identify whether it's constitutional or not.
And the courts generally do not favor laws that purposely deny someone rights. Not even "equal but seperate" laws.
You still haven't explained how that effects you.
All I'm asking is for you to prove your point.
And your comparison of Gay Marriage to incest is tired and lame.
Conservatives usually like to talk about how we have fundamental God-given rights, rather than gov't-given rights. But then they want to be strict constructionists, for whom every little detail has to be explicitly written into the Constitution, or you don't have that fundamental right. We should just let people vote on our rights, and hope for the best? Is that a conservative principle? As a liberal democrat, I'm for fundamental rights that limit gov't power, rather than hoping that more than half the people in my state decide I can have civil liberties as long as they think it's OK.
With respect to tort law, again, conservatives say they don't like gov't regulation, but if you had no tort law, absolutely everything would have to be government regulation. The threat of liability suits makes corporations do the right thing without having to read some gov't regulation. And if they're accused of not doing the right thing, real people guided by the law can decide who is liable, rather than some gov't bureaucrats.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
All you've stated is that lawsuits against the tobacco industry opened up corporations to supposedly frivilous law suits.
You still haven't explained how that effects you.
All I'm asking is for you to prove your point.
And your comparison of Gay Marriage to incest is tired and lame.
Ok one last clarifying statement, Then let's agree to disagree. OK?
frivolous lawsuits cost corporations money, attempting to avoid such also costs corporations money, thus costing every person that buys products directly or indirectly pays for that cost. Therefore higher costs for any given product. That helps no-one except lawyers and the plaintiffs.
I am all for the court system, and it works most of the time. But like I was trying to point out one judge with poor judgment (that sound funny) can alter the way courts handle frivolous lawsuits.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't understand why conservatives hate the courts so much.
Conservatives usually like to talk about how we have fundamental God-given rights, rather than gov't-given rights. But then they want to be strict constructionists, for whom every little detail has to be explicitly written into the Constitution, or you don't have that fundamental right. We should just let people vote on our rights, and hope for the best? Is that a conservative principle? As a liberal democrat, I'm for fundamental rights that limit gov't power, rather than hoping that more than half the people in my state decide I can have civil liberties as long as they think it's OK.
With respect to tort law, again, conservatives say they don't like gov't regulation, but if you had no tort law, absolutely everything would have to be government regulation. The threat of liability suits makes corporations do the right thing without having to read some gov't regulation. And if they're accused of not doing the right thing, real people guided by the law can decide who is liable, rather than some gov't bureaucrats.
This like many issues discussed here are often common sense rather than left/right. Our judges should base their decisions on common sense rather than any left/right leaning. Because we all know that both ends of the spectrum can be a little wacky and extreme.
The left however has figured if you install judges that put politics ahead of common sense, you get issues around the constitutional way of doing things.
As far as tort law, i agree. But frivolous law suits should be identified for what they are and rejected. They are not and the whole tobacco suit proved that. I do agree that if they lied they should be accountable. So I agree about that part. But the lawyers used ignorance a basis to sue. That is the part that hurts the legal system.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And it helps the consumer. Plus most companies have insurance.
Thus driving up costs also, look at doctors. A lot of doctors are deciding to change careers because it is just too expensive to remain a doctor.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It doesn't give them to you. But it does define them.
According to the framers it was ... God... that gave us our rights and the government's job to uphold and protect them. I know some hate to here the G word.
Running for cover.
"Bill of Rights"
Here's some homework. What is the UN's role and how does that tie into Hollywood.
Arnold the Gubinator is from Austria... Old Europe... and is Germanic... and a BAD hollywood actor.
Arnold now controls the 5th largest economy in the world.
The UN is running California.
"Oi, mate, you can't leave that lying there!" the barman tells the giraffe's friend.
"It's not a lion," he replies, "it's a giraffe", and he leaves the bar.
Heh.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
So. This bloke walks into a bar with a drunk giraffe and leaves to go home without it. The giraffe is lying in a pool of its own vomit.
"Oi, mate, you can't leave that lying there!" the barman tells the giraffe's friend.
"It's not a lion," he replies, "it's a giraffe", and he leaves the bar.
Heh.
I think that joke is accent specific. Yay.